What Section 736.1006 Says
Here is the whole section, quoted from the current official text.
(1) In all trust proceedings, costs may be awarded as in chancery actions.
(2) If costs are to be paid from the trust under subsection (1) or s. 733.106(4)(a), the court, in its discretion, may direct from what part of the trust the costs shall be paid. All or any part of the costs to be paid from the trust may be assessed against one or more persons' part of the trust in such proportions as the court finds to be just and proper. In the exercise of its discretion, the court may consider the factors set forth in s. 736.1005(2).
Two ideas. Costs follow equity practice rather than a prevailing party rule, and the court decides whose money they come out of.
As in Chancery Actions, Again
That phrase does the work, and it is the same phrase the breach of trust fee provision uses. Florida’s Fifth District explained what it imports while reversing a large fee award under that neighbouring section.
Under the chancery rule, a trial court may "apportion the costs between the parties, or require all costs be paid by the prevailing party."
Harrell v. Badger, 171 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).
So the court may split them, or load them onto one side. It is a discretion exercised on equitable grounds, not a formula. Our page on section 736.1004 covers that decision, where an award of $85,005.50 was reversed because the trial court had rested it on a merits finding rather than on stated equitable reasoning.
The same logic applies here. An order that shows its equitable reasoning is much harder to disturb than one that simply follows the result.
Charging Costs Against One Share
Subsection (2) is the part beneficiaries should read before deciding how hard to litigate. Costs paid from the trust can be assessed against one or more persons’ part of it, in whatever proportions the court thinks just and proper.
Since the 2015 amendment, the court may consider the seven factors set out in the fee section. Three of them are about conduct rather than merits, namely the extent to which a person actively participated in the proceeding, the relative strength or weakness of the claims or objections they raised, and whether they unjustly caused an increase in the fees incurred by the trustee or another person.
The practical implication is straightforward. A beneficiary who objects to everything, on thin grounds, is not merely risking losing. They are creating the record for an order that puts the costs on their share alone.
The One Case, and Its Version Problem
Only one Florida decision cites this section, and it is a cautionary example of why version years matter.
In January 2015 Florida’s Fourth District decided a case in which the parties had stipulated before trial that entitlement to fees and costs under sections 736.1005, 736.1006 and 736.1007 was an issue for determination. The court quoted all of them, including both subsections of this one, and then decided the appeal on an entirely different point, whether the beneficiary’s estate had waived an objection to how the trustee pleaded its fee basis. It had, by entering the stipulation.
So the section was quoted, not construed. And the quotation is now out of date, because chapter 2015-27 rewrote subsection (2) later that same year and imported the factors. The text that decision reproduces is not the statute as it now stands, which is why this page quotes the current version from the Legislature’s own site instead.
One more caution about that decision. It appears twice in the main public database of Florida opinions, once as the slip opinion and once after its reporter citation issued. Those are two records of one decision, not two decisions.
What Florida Courts Have Not Decided
On August 13, 2026 we searched Florida state and federal decisions for this section number, restricted to Florida courts, and found two records, which are one decision.
That decision quotes the section without construing it. So we located no Florida decision deciding what costs as in chancery actions requires under this section, how the allocation discretion in subsection (2) should be exercised, or how the imported factors apply to costs as opposed to fees.
The nearest useful authority is the Fifth District’s treatment of the same chancery phrase in the neighbouring fee statute, which is why this page relies on it and says plainly that it is a decision about a different section.
A section-number search does not find decisions that discuss a provision without naming it, and we have not run a citator pass.
Frequently Asked Questions
How Are Costs Awarded in a Florida Trust Proceeding?
Section 736.1006(1) says that in all trust proceedings, costs may be awarded as in chancery actions. That is the same formula the breach of trust fee statute uses, and Florida s Fifth District has explained what it imports. Under the chancery rule a trial court may apportion the costs between the parties, or require all costs be paid by the prevailing party. So the court has a genuine choice. Costs are not automatic and winning does not guarantee them.
Can Costs Be Charged Against My Share of the Trust?
Yes. Subsection (2) says that if costs are to be paid from the trust, the court in its discretion may direct from what part of the trust they are paid, and that all or any part of them may be assessed against one or more persons parts of the trust in such proportions as the court finds just and proper. So costs can come out of your share specifically rather than reducing the trust for everyone. That is a meaningful risk for a beneficiary who is deciding whether to object to something.
What Factors Does a Court Consider?
The same seven that govern fees. Subsection (2) says the court may consider the factors set forth in section 736.1005(2), which are the relative impact of an assessment on each person s share, the amount to be assessed, the extent to which the person actively participated in the proceeding, the potential benefit or detriment to their share from the outcome, the relative strength or weakness of their claims, defences or objections, whether they were a prevailing party, and whether they unjustly caused an increase in the fees incurred by the trustee or another person. Several of those are about conduct rather than merits.
Was Section 736.1006 Changed Recently?
Yes, and it matters when reading older cases. The section was amended by chapter 2015-27, which rewrote subsection (2) and imported the seven factors from the fee section. Before that amendment subsection (2) simply said that whenever costs are to be paid out of the trust the court in its discretion may direct from what part of the trust they shall be paid. The only Florida decision citing this section quotes that older text, so it does not describe the statute as it now stands.
What Is the Difference Between Costs and Attorney Fees Here?
Different provisions, and they are commonly pleaded together. This section is costs. Section 736.1005 is attorney fees for services rendered to the trust. Section 736.1004 is fees in actions for breach of fiduciary duty or challenging a trustee s exercise of powers. Section 736.1007 is the trustee s own attorney s fees. The four are frequently cited as a group in a single motion, which is exactly what happened in the one Florida decision that cites this section.
Has a Florida Court Interpreted Section 736.1006?
Not meaningfully. One Florida decision cites it, a 2015 Fourth District case, and that court quoted both subsections while deciding something else entirely, whether a party had waived an objection to how a fee entitlement had been pleaded. The court did not construe what costs as in chancery actions requires under this section, or how the allocation discretion should be exercised. So the section is applied in practice and essentially untouched by appellate authority.
Common Situations
The objection that went nowhere. A beneficiary objects to an accounting on grounds that do not survive the hearing. Two of the seven factors are aimed at exactly that, and the costs can be placed on their share rather than shared across the trust.
The costs nobody budgeted for. A trust dispute settles on the substance and the parties then discover costs are still live. Because this section is discretionary and equitable, costs are worth resolving in the settlement rather than leaving to an order.
The pre-2015 authority. Someone cites a case quoting subsection (2) and it does not match the statute you are reading. That is expected. The subsection was rewritten in 2015 and the only Florida decision citing the section predates the change.
Sources of Law
- Fla. Stat. §736.1006 (costs in trust proceedings). Official text, Online Sunshine, quoted in full above. History: s. 10, ch. 2006-217; s. 8, ch. 2015-27, which rewrote subsection (2) and imported the factors from section 736.1005(2). (retrieved 2026-08-13)
- Related sections from the same official source: §736.1005 (attorney fees for services to the trust, and the seven factors); §736.1004 (fees in breach of fiduciary duty actions); §736.1007 (trustee’s attorney fees). (retrieved 2026-08-13)
- Harrell v. Badger, 171 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA July 24, 2015), quoted above for the chancery apportionment rule. Reading note: that passage construes the identical phrase in section 736.1004, not this section. It is relied on here as persuasive on the meaning of the same words, and this page says so rather than presenting it as authority on section 736.1006. Discussed in full on our §736.1004 page. (retrieved 2026-08-13)
- Van Vechten v. Anyzeski, 157 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 21, 2015), Nos. 4D13-2980 and 4D13-3520, Gerber, J. Referred to above without quotation of its statutory passages. ★ Version note: it quotes the pre-2015 text of subsection (2), which chapter 2015-27 replaced later that year. Its quotations therefore do not state the current statute and are deliberately not reproduced on this page. Reading note: the decision quotes sections 736.1005, 736.1006 and 736.1007 but construes none of them, deciding the appeal on waiver of a pleading objection. It appears as two records in CourtListener, the slip opinion and the reporter version, which are the same decision. (retrieved 2026-08-13)
- Gap note, stated for the record: two Florida records cite this section and they are one decision, which quotes the section without construing it. We located no Florida decision construing this section. A section-number search does not find decisions that discuss a provision without naming it, and no citator pass was run.
- Quotation note: the passages above reproduce a Florida court’s own published words and the Legislature’s own current statutory text. Nothing is drawn from a headnote, case summary, or other editorial layer of a commercial research service.
- Nothing on this page predicts a result. How costs fall depends on the equities and the record in each case.
Updated on August 13, 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 costs fall in a particular proceeding depends on the equities and the record, which we review at a free consult. Please do not send confidential details until we have connected.
