The section
This part shall be interpreted to effectuate the intent of the state to preserve, foster, and encourage gifts to, or for the benefit of, charitable organizations.
Section 736.1210, Florida Statutes. Enacted in 2006 and never amended.
One sentence, and it is a direction to whoever is reading the rest of the Part.
The unusual thing about it
Trust law almost always resolves ambiguity by asking what the person who created the arrangement wanted. Section 736.1101, which performs the same office for the rules of construction in Part XI, says exactly that. The intent of the settlor as expressed in the terms of the trust controls the legal effect of the dispositions made in the trust.
This section does something different. It points at the intent of the state. Not the settlor, not the donor, not the beneficiaries. Where a provision of Part XII is capable of two readings, the tie breaks in favour of a public policy of preserving, fostering and encouraging charitable gifts.
That fits what Part XII is. The Part is not really about giving effect to a particular settlor’s wishes; it is Florida’s implementation of a federal regime designed to keep charitable money doing charitable work. A construction rule oriented to state policy rather than private intention is coherent with that.
What it reaches, and what it does not
This part. Not the Trust Code. The rule governs the interpretation of sections 736.1201 through 736.1211 and nothing else, so it has no bearing on a dispute about a trustee’s duty to account or on the construction of a family trust.
It is also a rule of interpretation. It operates on ambiguity, which means it does not authorise a court to depart from language that is clear. A provision of the Part that plainly produces a result unhelpful to a charitable gift still produces that result.
Within those limits it is a real instrument. It supports, for instance, a trustee arguing for the reading of section 736.1204 or section 736.1206 that keeps a gift alive and compliant rather than one that frustrates it, and it gives the Attorney General a stated policy to invoke when consenting or refusing consent under the Part’s notice provisions.
Where it would show up
The Part contains several provisions with genuine ambiguity, and we have flagged them on the pages concerned. How clearly a trust must otherwise provide to displace the Part under section 736.1202. What happens when a trustee never gives the notice section 736.1205 requires. Whether an election under section 736.1209 can be undone.
In each of those, this section tells you which way a court is directed to lean. That is not the same as an answer, but it is more than nothing, and it is the only interpretive guidance the Part supplies.
No court has cited this section
A search returns no citing documents at any precedential status in any court we searched. Nor has any other section of Part XII been cited, which we verified carefully before publishing, including by confirming that the same searches return results for sections that do have case law.
An interpretation provision is among the least likely things to be cited by name. A court persuaded by it would more naturally say that a construction favouring the charitable gift is to be preferred, and cite the general law. The section is doing its work whether or not it is named.