Florida Statute 736.0602: How to Revoke or Amend a Revocable Trust

What Section 736.0602 Says

While you are alive and have capacity, a revocable trust belongs to you. You can add a beneficiary, remove one, swap trustees, rewrite the distribution plan, or end the trust entirely. Section 736.0602 of the Florida Trust Code is where that power lives, and it is also where the conditions live. The section answers two questions. Is this trust revocable at all, and if it is, what does the settlor (the person who created the trust) have to do to change it.

Subsection (1) answers the first question, and it answers it in your favor. A Florida trust is revocable unless its own terms expressly say otherwise, so silence leaves the power to revoke in your hands. A trust becomes irrevocable because the document says so, not because time has passed or because someone tells you it is now locked.

Subsection (3) answers the second question, and it is the one that produces the lawsuits. It gives one primary route and, where that route is unavailable, two fallbacks.

• (3)(a), the method written into your trust. The statute provides that a “settlor may revoke or amend a revocable trust . . . [b]y substantial compliance with a method provided in the terms of the trust.”
• (3)(b)(1), a later will or codicil. Where the trust prescribes no method, the statute allows “[a] later will or codicil that expressly refers to the trust or specifically devises property that would otherwise have passed according to the terms of the trust.” A will that revokes “all prior trusts” without naming yours does not satisfy this branch, which is exactly how the leading case below arose.
• (3)(b)(2), any other method. The catch-all reaches “[a]ny other method manifesting clear and convincing evidence of the settlor’s intent.” Those last words carry the whole difficulty, because someone has to prove that intent, in court, to a demanding standard.

You can read the section itself on the Legislature’s site at Fla. Stat. §736.0602. Statutory text is only half the picture, though. Two published Florida appellate opinions decide most real disputes under this section, and they are quoted at length below.

The Method in Your Trust Controls

Open your trust and find the paragraph headed something like Amendment and Revocation. It usually reads like a small recipe, calling for a written instrument, signed by you, often notarized, and delivered to the trustee while you are living. Every element in that sentence is a term you set for yourself, and subsection (3)(a) tells courts to honor it. This is the branch nearly every Florida trust falls under, because nearly every Florida trust prescribes a method.

The statute asks for substantial compliance, not perfection, and that word choice is deliberate. Florida’s section is drawn from the Uniform Trust Code, and the comment to the uniform section, as the Second District quoted it in Grassfield, says the failure of “a technical requirement, such as required notarization, may be excused as long as compliance with the method specified in the terms of the trust is otherwise substantial,” while the method the trust prescribes “is a reliable safe harbor and should be followed whenever possible.”

Read those two ideas together and you get the working rule. There is room for a slip that changes nothing about who knew what and when. There is no room for skipping a step the settlor treated as important. The safe harbor is your own document, followed element for element, which costs nothing extra at signing and saves a great deal later. If your trust has already been amended two or three times and the pieces are getting hard to read together, the cleaner tool is usually a full rewrite that keeps the same trust. See trust amendment vs restatement.

What the Courts Have Actually Held

Two decisions do most of the work under this statute. Both are published opinions in other people’s cases, not ours, and both are free to read in full at the links in the Sources block at the bottom of this page. We quote them here because the courts’ own sentences are clearer than any summary of them.

Grassfield v. Grassfield (Fla. 2d DCA 2023): the substantial-compliance case

The settlor’s trust required a written, signed, notarized instrument delivered to the trustee during his lifetime, and the trust named two trustees. A 2018 restatement and two 2019 amendments were delivered to one of them. The Second District framed the appeal as a single question. Does following some of the settlor’s stated method, but not all of it, count as substantial compliance under the statute? It answered in the first paragraph.

“On this record, we answer the question in the negative. And we affirm the final judgment invalidating certain trust amendments because they did not substantially comply with the method set forth in the trust.”

Grassfield v. Grassfield, 381 So. 3d 628, 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).

What that means for you is that partial compliance is not automatically enough. The court did not announce that every missed detail is fatal, but it refused to treat the settlor’s own requirements as a wish list.

Before it got to the answer, the court acknowledged how little guidance exists. This is the sentence that makes the section unusual, and the reason a page like this one has something to add.

“Section 736.0602(3)(a) of the Florida Trust Code provides that a ‘settlor may revoke or amend a revocable trust . . . [b]y substantial compliance with a method provided in the terms of the trust.’ The code does not define ‘substantial compliance,’ nor has any appellate court defined it since the legislature adopted section 736.0602 in 2007.”

Grassfield, 381 So. 3d at 630 to 631.

What that means for you is that sixteen years of Florida trust amendments were signed against an undefined standard. The court went on to note that the Third District’s earlier remark about substantial compliance, in Bernal, was dicta, meaning a comment the decision did not turn on. So the definition question was open when Grassfield reached it, and how it was answered depended heavily on the wording of one man’s trust.

That wording is where the court turned next. The settlor had joined his requirements with the word “and,” and the court read the word the way it was written.

“Bruce expressed his method for amendment in the conjunctive. His method required a written, signed, notarized instrument ‘and’ delivery to the trustee during Bruce’s lifetime. We must give effect to this term in determining Bruce’s intent, and it shows that delivery to the trustee was not optional.”

Grassfield, 381 So. 3d at 632.

What that means for you is that the small connecting words in your amendment clause are doing legal work. A clause joined by “and” asks for all of it. This is worth five minutes with your own document tonight, because you can read that paragraph yourself and count the elements.

Then comes the holding, which draws the line between a formality that can slip and a step that cannot.

“We acknowledge that section 736.0602(3)(a) requires ‘substantial’ (not ‘strict’) compliance with the method a settlor prescribes for amendment of her or his trust. But given the emphasis Bruce’s trust instrument placed on having two trustees, we conclude that delivery to only one of them did not substantially comply with the method Bruce prescribed for amendment of his trust.”

Grassfield, 381 So. 3d at 632 to 633.

One sentence explains the difference in a breath.

“A trustee, unlike a notary, is not an outside observer whose involvement in amending or revoking a trust could be viewed as merely technical.”

Grassfield, 381 So. 3d at 632 to 633.

What that means for you is simple. A notary witnesses your signature and leaves. A trustee is the person who will hold and hand out your property, so telling that person about a change is part of the change. If your trust names two trustees, or a trustee and a co-trustee, deliver to both and keep proof that you did. The court also addressed the argument that the trustee had learned of the changes anyway, and explained that knowledge under the Trust Code’s notice provisions does not substitute for the delivery the trust itself required. Grassfield is the most recent Florida appellate discussion of substantial compliance under this section, and later decisions have cited it for how courts read a settlor’s intent.

Bernal v. Marin (Fla. 3d DCA 2016): what happens when the trust is silent

The settlor signed a 2004 trust that left the remainder to four charities. It reserved her right to revoke but prescribed no method for doing it. Four years later she signed a will leaving everything to her caregiver, declaring that it revoked “all other wills, trust and codicils previously made by me” without ever naming the trust. The Third District treated the resulting dispute as new ground.

“This appeal presents an issue of first impression, namely the interpretation of section 736.0602(3), ‘Revocation or amendment of revocable trust’ ... The question that must be answered in this appeal is whether Bernal may rely on subsection (b)(2) which allows for the revocation or amendment of a trust by ‘[a]ny other method manifesting clear and convincing evidence of the settlor’s intent.’”

Bernal v. Marin, 196 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

What that means for you is that when a trust says nothing about how to revoke it, the argument moves off the document and onto proof of what the settlor wanted. That is a different, and much more expensive, kind of case.

The court then explained how the two fallback doors differ, and who carries what burden through each.

“However, if the ‘any other method’ under section 736.0602(3)(b)(2) is alleged, the proponent must not only prove the settlor’s intent, he must do so by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, based on the clear language of section 736.0602(3), the Florida Legislature has: (1) reduced the burden of establishing a revocation or amendment of a trust if the trust provides for a method to revoke or amend or if a later will or codicil complies with the specific requirement of section 736.0602(3)(b)(1); and (2) increased the burden when neither of these methods is available by requiring clear and convincing evidence of the settlor’s intent.”

Bernal, 196 So. 3d 432.

What that means for you is that the statute rewards planning and taxes improvisation. Follow the trust’s method, or write a will that names the trust, and nobody has to prove your state of mind. Skip both and your family inherits the burden of proving it.

The court rejected the narrower reading the trial court had adopted, and it used an image that has been quoted ever since.

“If Zintgraff had simply written a letter to Tacon telling him that she no longer wanted to leave $5,000 to Lisa Cardozo and the rest of her property to the four entities listed in her Trust, but, instead, wanted to leave everything to Bernal, or she had scribbled the exact same thing on a napkin or a piece of paper and left it in her dresser drawer, then clearly, the ‘any other method’ provision of section 736.0602(3)(b)(2) would be applicable and evidence of Zintgraff’s intent would be admissible ... But, under the trial court’s interpretation, a will drafted by a lawyer that was then executed by the testator, witnessed and notarized and that says the same thing, may not be considered.”

Bernal, 196 So. 3d 432.

What that means for you is that the catch-all is genuinely broad, so an informal writing is not automatically worthless where the trust prescribed no method. Read the passage carefully, though, and notice what it costs. Every route it describes ends with a judge weighing evidence about a person who is no longer available to explain. The napkin can be considered. It still has to be proven.

When the Trust Prescribes No Method

A minority of trusts, usually older ones or documents assembled from a form, reserve the right to revoke without ever saying how. Subsection (3)(b) is written for that situation, and it opens two doors that are nothing like each other in practice. The first thing any lawyer checks is whether a fallback door is even open, because that depends on the words of the trust itself.

Door one, a later will or codicil. This is the orderly path. A will that expressly refers to the trust, or that specifically gives away property that would otherwise have passed under the trust, can revoke or amend it. Notice how exacting that is. In Bernal the will swept broadly at “all other wills, trust and codicils previously made by me” and still never named the trust, which is how a document drafted by a lawyer, signed, witnessed, and notarized, ended up litigated in the Third District instead of simply working.

Door two, any other method. The catch-all reaches almost any form of writing or act, and the price of that breadth is the standard of proof. Clear and convincing evidence sits well above the everyday civil standard, and someone has to carry it in a courtroom, with testimony, after the settlor is gone. Translate that into what it costs a family, and it is a lawsuit, discovery, deposition of whoever was in the room, and a judge deciding what your mother meant by a note in a drawer.

So door two is a rescue, not a plan. If you are relying on it because it is what happened, that is a real argument and it is worth making. If you are choosing it in advance, choose again. And if you are on the other side of one of these disputes, deadlines can matter more than the merits, because a challenge to a revocable trust can be barred well before you expect it. See the companion annotation, Fla. Stat. 736.0604 and the deadline to contest a trust.

The Other Subsections Courts Have Applied

Subsection (3) gets the attention, but the rest of the section shows up in real cases too. The decisions below are described here in our own words rather than quoted, because the point is the rule, not the phrasing.

• Subsection (1), revocable unless the document says otherwise. In a 2016 Second District case, Nelson v. Nelson, the settlor had given up every power to alter, amend, or modify the trust in the document itself. That language made the trust irrevocable under subsection (1), and the practical consequence was significant. The home held in that trust was beyond the reach of equitable distribution in the divorce. A federal court in the Middle District of Florida applied the same express-terms rule in 2023 in a tax-collection case, United States v. Planes, though federal decisions on Florida law are persuasive rather than binding on Florida courts.
• Subsection (6), a guardian of the property. The section allows a guardian of the property of the settlor to exercise the settlor’s powers over revocation, amendment, and distribution of trust property, and the Fifth District applied that subsection in Rene v. Sykes-Kennedy in 2015. What this looks like in practice is a guardianship proceeding and a judge, not a decision the family makes on its own. Whether a guardian may amend a particular trust, and what the guardianship court has to approve first, is a question for that court.
• Subsection (2), trusts with more than one settlor. When spouses or partners create a trust together, this subsection governs whose property each of them may reach and revoke. It surfaced in a 2021 bankruptcy case in the Southern District of Florida, In re Romagnoli, in a dispute over whether property a married couple had placed in trust kept its creditor protection. If you and your spouse signed a joint trust, this is the subsection to read before either of you changes anything alone.
• Subsection (5), your agent under a power of attorney, and the trap in it. The statute is strict here. A settlor’s powers over revocation, amendment, and distribution “may be exercised by an agent under a power of attorney only as authorized by s. 709.2202.” That cross-reference matters more than it looks. Florida requires those trust powers to be granted separately and initialed by you in the power of attorney itself, so a general durable power of attorney, however broad it sounds, does not let your agent touch your trust. Families discover this at the worst moment, when a parent can no longer sign. See our guide to the Florida durable power of attorney and the powers that must be initialed.

What This Means If You Are Amending a Trust

Everything above collapses into a short list. If you are making a change:

• Read your own amendment clause first, and follow all of it. Count the elements. Written instrument, your signature, witnesses, notary, delivery. If the clause joins them with “and,” treat every one as required, because that is exactly what Grassfield did.
• Deliver to every trustee the document names. Both co-trustees, not the one who is easier to reach. Keep the proof, whether that is a signed receipt, a certified mailing, or an email trail. Delivery you cannot prove is delivery you may have to litigate.
• Sign it the way the original trust was signed. The provisions deciding who inherits at your death are only valid when the instrument carries Florida’s will formalities, which is why we execute every amendment and restatement with two witnesses and a notary.
• Do not invent a shortcut. A line crossed out, a margin note, an unsigned letter to a child, a beneficiary form that contradicts the trust: each of these creates the exact dispute the trust was written to prevent. And after the second or third amendment, a restatement is usually the cleaner answer, with no re-deeding of your funded assets.

If you are on the other side, challenging an amendment that has already been signed, the record is what decides it. Get the trust and every prior amendment, in order. Pin down what the trust’s method actually required, then what was actually done, and by whom, and when: who signed, who notarized, who received a copy, and whether anyone can prove it. If the trust prescribed no method at all, the question changes shape and becomes what evidence exists of the settlor’s intent and whether it rises to clear and convincing. We handle both sides of this work, and we will tell you honestly at the consult which of those pictures your documents show. What we will not do is predict how a judge would rule, because the published decisions above turned on the specific words of specific trusts.

Amendments and restatements are quoted flat at the free 30-minute consult, scoped to the actual change, and we honor the quote. Trust disputes are quoted at the consult as well, once we have seen the documents. Our posted flat fees for planning work are on the pricing page, and government costs such as recording fees are additional and passed through at cost. If you are starting from the beginning rather than fixing something, start with how a Florida revocable living trust works; if the fight has already begun, see Florida trust litigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Common Situations

The amendment nobody delivered. A daughter brings in her late mother’s trust along with an amendment that looks perfect: typed, signed, notarized, dated two years before her mother died. The trust names two co-trustees, the daughter and her brother, and requires delivery to the trustee during the settlor’s lifetime. The brother never received a copy, and now he says the amendment does not count. Whether it stands is a fact question a judge would weigh, and it is the same question the Second District confronted in Grassfield. What is certain is that a copy handed to the brother at the kitchen table, with a note in the file, would have cost nothing.

The later will that never named the trust. A widower signs a new will after remarrying, leaving everything to his second wife. His lawyer includes standard language revoking all prior wills and codicils. The 2011 trust, which still names his children from his first marriage, is never mentioned in the will and prescribes no method for revoking it. After his death, both sides believe they are obviously right. Under section 736.0602(3) the dispute lands on the fallback doors, where somebody has to prove intent by clear and convincing evidence. Naming the trust in the will would have removed the argument entirely.

The margin note. A father crosses out one grandchild’s name in his trust, writes another in the margin, initials it, and puts the document back in the safe. He tells two people what he did. When the trust is administered, the family is left arguing about whether an initialed edit is a written instrument, whether it was ever delivered to anyone, and what he actually intended. A one-page amendment, signed the way the trust required, would have taken twenty minutes.

Sources of Law

• Fla. Stat. §736.0602 (revocation or amendment of a revocable trust: revocable unless the terms expressly provide otherwise; amendment by substantial compliance with the method in the terms of the trust; the later-will and any-other-method fallbacks; joint settlors; guardian of the property). Official text, Online Sunshine. (retrieved 2026-08-12)
• Grassfield v. Grassfield, 381 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). Quoted above at 629, 630 to 631, 632, and 632 to 633. Full opinion: CourtListener. (retrieved 2026-08-12)
• Bernal v. Marin, 196 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Quoted above on the first-impression framing, the two-tier burden holding, and the “any other method” passage. Full opinion: CourtListener; official Third District PDF. (retrieved 2026-08-12)
• Unif. Tr. Code § 602 cmt., quoted in Grassfield, 381 So. 3d at 631 (a technical failure such as required notarization may be excused where compliance is otherwise substantial; the prescribed method is a safe harbor and should be followed whenever possible). (retrieved 2026-08-12)
• Described, not quoted: Nelson v. Nelson, 206 So. 3d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (subsection (1), express terms making a trust irrevocable); Rene v. Sykes-Kennedy, 156 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (subsection (6), guardian of the property); United States v. Planes, 656 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (M.D. Fla. 2023) and In re Romagnoli, 631 B.R. 807 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2021) (federal applications of subsections (1) and (2); persuasive only). (retrieved 2026-08-12)
• Quotation note: the passages above reproduce the courts’ own published words, with omissions marked by ellipses. Court opinions are public records, and nothing here is drawn from a commercial research service.
• The decisions on this page are published opinions in other parties’ cases, not matters handled by this firm. Court outcomes depend on the specific documents and facts of each case, and nothing here predicts a result.

Updated on August 12, 2026. Reviewed by Kevin D. Klagge, Esq., Fla. Bar No. 99502. Attorney Kevin Klagge represents families, businesses, and international clients in estate and tax planning, business structuring, and international law, with a focus on Florida legal tools. He litigates estate and business issues in court. General information about Florida law and published court decisions, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created. How section 736.0602 applies to your trust depends on your specific documents and facts, which we review at a free consult.