Two duties in one sentence
A trustee shall take reasonable steps to compel a former trustee or other person to deliver trust property to the trustee and, except as provided in s. 736.08125, to redress a breach of trust known to the trustee to have been committed by a former trustee.
Section 736.0812, Florida Statutes. Enacted in 2006 and never amended since.
The first duty is unremarkable. If somebody is holding trust property, the trustee must take reasonable steps to get it. That covers a former trustee who kept the records or the chequebook, and it covers any other person holding trust assets. It pairs with section 736.0707, which addresses what a resigning or removed trustee must do, and with section 736.0809, the general duty to take control of trust property.
The second duty is the one people do not expect
Read the rest of the sentence. A trustee must also take reasonable steps to redress a breach of trust known to the trustee to have been committed by a former trustee.
That is an affirmative obligation to go after your predecessor. Not to report it, not to disclose it, but to redress it. And the trigger is knowledge, so a successor who learns during the handover that money went missing has the duty from that moment.
Consider how this usually arises. A parent dies, one adult child takes over as trustee from another who has been managing things for years, and the incoming trustee finds transfers they cannot explain. The instinct is to say nothing, keep the peace, and quietly carry on. Under this section that instinct is the exposure. The successor is not liable for what the predecessor did, but is answerable for doing nothing about a breach they knew of.
The exception is as important as the rule
The duty is expressly subject to section 736.08125, which protects successor trustees, and any successor facing this question should read the two together. That section provides that a successor is not personally liable for a prior trustee’s actions and has no duty to bring proceedings in a list of circumstances. They include a beneficiary who has released the successor, a beneficiary who waived accountings for the relevant period, a successor who follows a settlor who was trustee of their own revocable trust, and a release given by a super majority of eligible beneficiaries, meaning two thirds.
One of those provisions is a deadline, and it is short. Where the successor has notified an eligible beneficiary in writing that they have accepted the trust, and that writing contains the warning the statute prescribes, the beneficiary has six months from the date of acceptance to deliver a written request that the successor pursue the prior trustee. Without that written request in time, the right to proceed against the successor is barred.
So a letter that looks like routine notice of a change of trustee can start a six month clock. Section 736.08125 has been amended four times, most recently in 2025, and no Florida court has construed it. If you have received notice that a new trustee has taken over and you have concerns about the old one, the date on that letter matters.
The Florida case, and why it is not authority for the interesting half
One Florida decision cites this section. It is Prewitt v. Kimmons, where the Fifth District reversed summary judgment against a beneficiary, quoting the section alongside two others.
See § 736.0801, Fla. Stat. (2013) (“[T]he trustee shall administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms . . . .”); id. § 736.0811 (“A trustee shall take reasonable steps to enforce claims of the trust . . . .”); id. § 736.0812 (“A trustee shall take reasonable steps to compel a former trustee or other person to deliver trust property to the trustee . . . .”).
Prewitt v. Kimmons, 237 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
We want to be exact about what that does and does not support, because the case reads at first glance like authority on the successor duty and it is not.
Two things. The quotation stops halfway. The court quoted the delivery duty and omitted the entire second half of the section, the duty to redress a former trustee’s breach. And the facts are the wrong shape. The trustee accused of taking trust money in that case was the trustee being sued, not a predecessor. The original trustee was never accused of anything. There was no former trustee defendant in the case at all.
So Prewitt is good authority that these duties exist and that failing them can defeat summary judgment on a breach of fiduciary duty claim. It is not authority on whether or when a successor must pursue a predecessor, because that question was not before the court. So far as our review found, no Florida decision has construed the redress duty, and none has construed it against the section 736.08125 exceptions.