What Section 736.1009 Says
The whole section, quoted from the Legislature's own text.
A trustee who acts in reasonable reliance on the terms of the trust as expressed in the trust instrument is not liable to a beneficiary for a breach of trust to the extent the breach resulted from the reliance.
One sentence carrying three conditions. The reliance must be reasonable. It must be on the terms as expressed in the trust instrument, not on what the trustee understood the settlor to have wanted. And the protection runs only to the extent the breach resulted from the reliance.
The section has never been amended since it took effect on July 1, 2007.
Reasonable Reliance, Not Just Reliance
The adjective is doing real work. A trustee who genuinely believed the trust permitted something is not automatically protected; the belief has to have been a reasonable one about a document that could bear that reading.
That is also why the phrase "as expressed in the trust instrument" matters. The section points at the document. A trustee relying on a conversation with the settlor, or on an understanding of family intentions, is outside what the section protects, however sincerely held.
The One Case, and Why It Failed on Two Grounds
In 2014 Florida's Third District considered the defence in a case about a bank co-trustee that had stopped paying a young beneficiary's university expenses, which the settlor had directed be paid. The court dealt with it in a footnote.
We reject Wells Fargo's argument that it should not be held liable for the breach of trust because it reasonably relied on the language of the Trust Agreement; § 736.1009, Fla. Stat. (2010). This argument was not raised in the trial court, and in any event the Trust Agreement states that the co-trustee "shall" pay such sums as Mrs. Kritchman might direct at any time. Institutional trustees charge and are paid fees for following such directions, and they are exposed to liability when they do not.
Kritchman v. Wolk, 152 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), n.6.
Read the structure of that rejection, because it is easy to over-read.
The first ground has nothing to do with this section. The argument had not been raised in the trial court, so it was not preserved. Courts dispose of arguments that way regardless of their merits.
The second ground is the one about the statute, and the court introduces it with "in any event", which signals an alternative. The trust said the co-trustee shall pay such sums as the settlor might direct. Faced with that language, there was no reasonable reliance available on a reading that permitted refusal.
So Florida has one decision in which this defence failed, on those facts, with the statutory point reached in the alternative. It has no decision explaining when the defence succeeds. That is the honest position and it cuts both ways. A trustee cannot point to authority supporting the defence, and a beneficiary cannot point to authority defeating it in general.
When the Trust Says Shall
The most reliable way to lose this defence is to have relied on a document that gave you no choice.
That is what happened in the 2014 case, and the court's closing sentence is worth sitting with if you are a professional trustee or dealing with one. Institutional trustees charge and are paid fees for following such directions, and they are exposed to liability when they do not.
The corollary is more comfortable for trustees. A trustee that follows a clear mandatory direction in the instrument is doing exactly what the section contemplates, and is in a far stronger position than one using the section to justify refusing.
A Partial Defence, Not a Complete One
The last four words of the section are easy to skim. The trustee is not liable to the extent the breach resulted from the reliance.
So this is not an all or nothing answer. Where a trustee reasonably relied on the trust for part of what it did, and went beyond the document for the rest, the section addresses only the first part. A trustee raising it should be prepared to identify precisely which conduct the reliance explains, and a beneficiary answering it should be looking for the conduct it does not.
Two neighbouring defences are worth distinguishing. An exculpation clause is a term the settlor wrote into the document to excuse the trustee in advance, and its limits are in Fla. Stat. 736.1011. A consent or release is something a beneficiary signed, governed by Fla. Stat. 736.1012. This section is neither. It is about what the trust actually said and whether relying on it was reasonable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Florida Trustee Defend by Saying They Followed the Trust?
Sometimes, and section 736.1009 is the provision. It says a trustee who acts in reasonable reliance on the terms of the trust as expressed in the trust instrument is not liable to a beneficiary for a breach of trust to the extent the breach resulted from the reliance. Three limits are built into that sentence. The reliance has to be reasonable, it has to be on the terms as expressed in the instrument, and the protection runs only to the extent the breach actually resulted from the reliance.
Has a Florida Court Applied Section 736.1009?
Once that we located, and the defence failed. In 2014 Florida's Third District rejected a corporate co-trustee's argument that it should not be liable for a breach of trust because it had reasonably relied on the language of the trust agreement. Read the rejection carefully though, because the court gave two independent reasons and only one of them is about this section. The argument had not been raised in the trial court. And separately, on the merits, the trust agreement said the co-trustee shall pay such sums as the settlor might direct, so there was no reasonable reliance available on the reading the trustee wanted.
Does That Case Mean the Defence Never Works?
No, and it would be a mistake to read it that way. The court did not hold that reasonable reliance is generally unavailable, or set out when it applies. It disposed of the argument on preservation and then, in the alternative, on the plain words of that particular trust. So Florida has one decision in which the defence failed on those facts, and no decision explaining the circumstances in which it succeeds. If you are a trustee relying on this section, you are relying on the statutory text.
What Makes Reliance Reasonable?
The statute does not say and no Florida decision we located explains it. What the one case suggests is the obvious starting point. Reliance on a reading the document will not bear is not reasonable. There the trust said the co-trustee shall pay sums the settlor directed, which is mandatory language, and the trustee could not reasonably read it as leaving discretion. Beyond that, the ordinary factors will matter, including whether the ambiguity was genuine, whether advice was taken, and whether a professional trustee should have recognised the problem.
Does This Section Protect a Trustee Who Was Told What to Do?
Following a settlor's direction is closer to the heart of the section than resisting one. The 2014 case is instructive precisely because the trustee tried to use the section to justify not following a direction. The court's answer was blunt about what institutional trustees are paid for. They charge and are paid fees for following such directions, and they are exposed to liability when they do not. A trustee that follows a clear direction in the instrument is in a much stronger position under this section than one that declines to.
How Does This Compare With an Exculpation Clause?
They are different things and worth keeping apart. This section is a statutory defence based on what the trust actually said and whether reliance on it was reasonable. An exculpation clause is a term the settlor put in the document trying to excuse the trustee in advance, and its limits are in Fla. Stat. 736.1011, which makes such a clause unenforceable so far as it covers bad faith or reckless indifference. A third route, where a beneficiary has signed something, is Fla. Stat. 736.1012. A trustee may have all three available, or none.
Common Situations
The trustee who read it narrowly. A bank stops paying an expense the settlor directed, saying the trust does not clearly require it. If the instrument says shall, that reading is the problem rather than the defence, which is close to what the 2014 case decided.
The genuinely ambiguous clause. A trust is capable of two readings and the trustee picked one. That is the situation the section was written for. There is no Florida decision telling you how a court will assess reasonableness, so the argument is built from the document, any advice taken, and what a trustee in that role should have seen.
The family trustee following a letter. A son administering his mother's trust follows a letter of wishes rather than the trust itself. The section protects reliance on the terms as expressed in the trust instrument, and a letter of wishes is generally not that, so the defence may not reach it at all.
Sources of Law
- Fla. Stat. §736.1009 (reliance on trust instrument). Official text, Online Sunshine, quoted in full above. History: s. 10, ch. 2006-217. Never amended since the Florida Trust Code took effect on July 1, 2007. (retrieved 2026-08-13)
- Related sections from the same official source: §736.1011 (exculpation of trustee); §736.1012 (beneficiary's consent, release, or ratification); §736.1001 (remedies for breach of trust). (retrieved 2026-08-13)
- Kritchman v. Wolk, 152 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 1, 2014), No. 3D12-2977 and No. 3D12-2457, Salter, J., with Lagoa and Emas, JJ. Footnote 6 quoted above. ★ Reading note, and it matters. The court rejected the defence on two independent grounds, and only one concerns this section. The argument was not raised in the trial court, and, in the alternative, the trust's mandatory language left no reasonable reliance available. The decision therefore does not hold that the defence generally fails, and this page does not present it as doing so. The same decision is discussed on our §736.0803 and §736.0804 pages. Source: CourtListener. (retrieved 2026-08-13)
- Gap note, stated for the record: a search of Florida state and federal decisions for this section number, restricted to Florida courts, returned one case on August 13, 2026, and in it the defence failed. We located no Florida decision explaining when reliance on the terms of a trust is reasonable, or applying the section successfully. A section-number search does not find decisions that discuss a provision without naming it, and no citator pass was run.
- Quotation note: the passage above reproduces a Florida court's own published words and the Legislature's own 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. Whether reliance was reasonable depends on the trust's wording and the facts.
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. Whether this defence is available depends on the trust's own words, which we review at a free consult. Please do not send confidential details until we have connected.
