William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you put money into a special fund managed by someone you trust, like a trustee. If that trustee mismanages the fund, you might think you can sue them. However, this case shows that you need solid proof of wrongdoing, not just a feeling that things weren't handled perfectly, to win a lawsuit. The court said the person suing didn't have enough evidence to prove the trustee messed up badly enough to be held responsible.

For Legal Practitioners

The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant trustees, holding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for breach of fiduciary duty. Crucially, the plaintiff's evidence, which focused on the trustees' alleged failure to maximize returns and their investment in a specific company, was deemed insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. This decision underscores the high evidentiary burden on beneficiaries alleging breach of fiduciary duty, particularly when the alleged breach centers on investment decisions rather than outright fraud or self-dealing.

For Law Students

This case tests the elements of a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a trustee. The court's affirmation of summary judgment highlights the plaintiff's burden to present specific evidence demonstrating a breach, rather than mere dissatisfaction with investment outcomes. It reinforces the doctrine that trustees are not insurers of trust assets and that courts will not second-guess reasonable business judgments absent clear evidence of misconduct, fitting within the broader principles of trust administration and fiduciary responsibilities.

Newsroom Summary

A Florida appeals court sided with trustees accused of mismanaging a trust, ruling the accuser didn't provide enough evidence of wrongdoing. The decision means beneficiaries must present strong proof of a breach of duty to challenge a trustee's actions in court.

Procedural Posture

This case originated in the trial court where the plaintiff, William Ivan, sought to compel the defendants, Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder, to account for their actions as trustees of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement. The trial court entered an order compelling the trustees to provide an accounting. The defendants appealed this order to the Florida District Court of Appeal.

Rule Statements

"A beneficiary is entitled to receive from the trustee at least annually a report of the trust property, liabilities, receipts, and disbursements, including the source and amount of the trustee’s compensation, a statement of the assets the trustee is administering, and, if practicable, a statement of the trust’s income and expenses for the preceding fiscal year."

"The duty to report encompasses the duty to account."

Remedies

Order compelling the trustees to provide an accounting.Affirmation of the trial court's order.

Parties

• Shannon C. Gawronski (party)
• Mathew T. Holder (party)
• Benjamin J. Sanchez (party)
• Timothy H. Sanchez (party)

Scenario: You are a beneficiary of a trust, and you believe the trustee has made poor investment decisions that have caused the trust to lose money. You feel they haven't acted in your best interest.

Your Rights: You have the right to sue a trustee for breach of fiduciary duty if you can prove they acted improperly or negligently. However, you must provide concrete evidence of this breach, not just a disagreement with their investment strategy or a bad market outcome.

What To Do: Gather all trust documents, financial statements, and any correspondence with the trustee. Consult with an attorney specializing in trust and estate litigation to assess the strength of your evidence and understand the legal requirements for proving a breach of fiduciary duty in your jurisdiction.

Is it legal for a trustee to make investment decisions that result in losses for a trust?

It depends. Trustees are allowed to make investment decisions, but they must act prudently, loyally, and in the best interest of the beneficiaries. If losses occur due to imprudent decisions, negligence, or a failure to act in the beneficiaries' best interest, it could be a breach of fiduciary duty. However, simply experiencing market downturns or making reasonable investment choices that don't pan out as expected is generally not illegal.

This applies generally across jurisdictions, but specific trust laws and standards of care can vary by state.

For Trust beneficiaries

Beneficiaries must be prepared to present strong, specific evidence of a trustee's misconduct to succeed in a lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty. Simply showing that a trust lost money or that the beneficiary disagrees with investment choices will likely not be enough to overcome a motion for summary judgment.

For Trustees

This ruling reinforces that trustees are not held to a standard of guaranteeing investment returns. As long as they act prudently, in good faith, and in accordance with the trust's terms, they are generally protected from liability for investment losses that result from market fluctuations or reasonable business judgments.

Q: What is William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez about?

William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez is a case decided by Florida District Court of Appeal on April 21, 2026.

Q: What court decided William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez?

William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal, which is part of the FL state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez decided?

William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez was decided on April 21, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez?

The citation for William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and who are the main parties involved in William Ivan v. Jeff Holder?

The full case name is William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez. The primary parties litigating are William Ivan, acting as a trustee and individually, and Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder, who are also trustees. The other named parties are nominal and do not appear to be actively involved in the dispute.

Q: What court decided the case of William Ivan v. Jeff Holder, and what was its role?

The case was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal. This court reviewed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder. The appellate court's role was to determine if the trial court erred in its ruling based on the evidence presented.

Q: When was the trust agreement at the center of the William Ivan v. Jeff Holder case established?

The trust agreement, known as the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement, was established on October 2, 2000. This date is significant as it defines the terms and conditions under which the trust was created and subsequently managed by the trustees.

Q: What was the fundamental nature of the dispute in William Ivan v. Jeff Holder?

The core dispute in this case was an allegation of breach of fiduciary duty. William Ivan, a trustee, claimed that Jeff Holder, another trustee, mismanaged the trust. The case centered on whether Ivan presented enough evidence to prove this mismanagement occurred.

Q: What was the outcome of the trial court's decision in William Ivan v. Jeff Holder?

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder. This means the trial court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, effectively dismissing Ivan's claims at that stage.

Q: Is William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez published?

William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez. Key holdings: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant trustees.; The court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the trustees acted in bad faith or engaged in self-dealing, which are necessary elements to prove a breach of fiduciary duty in this context.; The plaintiff's argument that the trustees' actions were unreasonable was insufficient to overcome summary judgment without specific evidence of misconduct or a failure to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries.; The court reiterated that a trustee's duty is to act in accordance with the trust instrument and the law, and the plaintiff failed to show a deviation from these standards.; The appellate court concluded that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was speculative and did not raise a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial..

Q: Why is William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez important?

William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez has an impact score of 20/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case reinforces the high burden of proof required to overcome a motion for summary judgment in trust litigation, particularly when alleging breach of fiduciary duty. It highlights that speculative claims or general dissatisfaction with trustee actions are insufficient without specific evidentiary support, guiding future litigants on the type of evidence needed to sustain such claims.

Q: What precedent does William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez set?

William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez established the following key holdings: (1) The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant trustees. (2) The court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the trustees acted in bad faith or engaged in self-dealing, which are necessary elements to prove a breach of fiduciary duty in this context. (3) The plaintiff's argument that the trustees' actions were unreasonable was insufficient to overcome summary judgment without specific evidence of misconduct or a failure to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries. (4) The court reiterated that a trustee's duty is to act in accordance with the trust instrument and the law, and the plaintiff failed to show a deviation from these standards. (5) The appellate court concluded that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was speculative and did not raise a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial.

Q: What are the key holdings in William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez?

1. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant trustees. 2. The court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the trustees acted in bad faith or engaged in self-dealing, which are necessary elements to prove a breach of fiduciary duty in this context. 3. The plaintiff's argument that the trustees' actions were unreasonable was insufficient to overcome summary judgment without specific evidence of misconduct or a failure to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries. 4. The court reiterated that a trustee's duty is to act in accordance with the trust instrument and the law, and the plaintiff failed to show a deviation from these standards. 5. The appellate court concluded that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was speculative and did not raise a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial.

Q: What cases are related to William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez?

Precedent cases cited or related to William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez: Finst v. Dist. Court, 693 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1997); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sorensen, 771 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Q: What specific legal claim did William Ivan bring against Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder?

William Ivan brought a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder. This claim alleged that the trustees failed to act in the best interests of the trust and its beneficiaries due to mismanagement of the trust's assets or affairs.

Q: What legal standard did the appellate court apply when reviewing the trial court's grant of summary judgment?

The appellate court applied a de novo standard of review to the trial court's grant of summary judgment. This means the appellate court reviewed the case anew, without giving deference to the trial court's legal conclusions, to determine if the evidence presented created a genuine issue of material fact.

Q: What did William Ivan need to show to defeat the motion for summary judgment?

To defeat the motion for summary judgment, William Ivan needed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. This means he had to show that a reasonable jury could find that Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder breached their duties as trustees.

Q: What was the appellate court's main reason for affirming the trial court's decision?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision because it found that William Ivan failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court concluded that the evidence Ivan provided did not support his claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the trustees.

Q: Did the appellate court find any evidence of mismanagement of the trust assets?

Based on the summary, the appellate court did not find sufficient evidence of mismanagement to overcome the summary judgment. The court's affirmation of the trial court's decision indicates that the evidence presented by Ivan was deemed inadequate to demonstrate a genuine dispute over the trustees' conduct.

Q: What does 'fiduciary duty' mean in the context of this trust case?

Fiduciary duty, in this context, means the legal obligation of the trustees (Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder) to act solely in the best interests of the trust and its beneficiaries. This includes duties of loyalty, care, and prudence in managing the trust's assets and affairs, avoiding self-dealing and conflicts of interest.

Q: What is 'summary judgment' and why is it relevant to this case?

Summary judgment is a procedural device where a party asks the court to rule in their favor without a full trial, arguing that there are no disputed facts and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In this case, the defendants successfully obtained summary judgment, meaning the trial court found Ivan's evidence insufficient to proceed to trial.

Q: What is the significance of 'genuine issue of material fact' in this ruling?

A 'genuine issue of material fact' is a fact that is essential to the outcome of the case and about which there is conflicting evidence, preventing summary judgment. The appellate court found that Ivan did not present such issues, meaning the facts presented were either undisputed or insufficient to raise a real question for a jury.

Q: How does William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez affect me?

This case reinforces the high burden of proof required to overcome a motion for summary judgment in trust litigation, particularly when alleging breach of fiduciary duty. It highlights that speculative claims or general dissatisfaction with trustee actions are insufficient without specific evidentiary support, guiding future litigants on the type of evidence needed to sustain such claims. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of the appellate court's decision on William Ivan?

The practical impact on William Ivan is that his claims against Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder for breach of fiduciary duty have been dismissed. He is unable to pursue these specific allegations further in court, and the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the trustees has been upheld.

Q: Who is most affected by the outcome of William Ivan v. Jeff Holder?

The primary individuals affected are William Ivan, who lost his legal challenge, and the trustees, Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder, who successfully defended against the claims. The beneficiaries of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust may also be indirectly affected, as the court's decision means the trust's management, as overseen by the current trustees, remains unchallenged on these grounds.

Q: Does this ruling change how trustees must manage trusts in Florida?

This specific ruling does not establish new law or change existing trustee obligations in Florida. Instead, it applies existing principles of fiduciary duty and summary judgment standards to the facts presented. It reinforces that plaintiffs must provide sufficient evidence to support claims of breach of duty to avoid summary judgment.

Q: What are the potential implications for future trust litigation in Florida based on this case?

This case serves as a reminder that plaintiffs in trust litigation must diligently gather and present evidence to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact. It highlights the importance of meeting the burden of proof at the summary judgment stage to avoid dismissal, particularly in cases involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.

Q: What might William Ivan have done differently to potentially succeed in his claim?

To potentially succeed, William Ivan would have needed to present concrete evidence demonstrating specific instances of mismanagement or a violation of fiduciary duties by Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder. This could have included financial records, expert testimony, or evidence of self-dealing that created a genuine issue of material fact for a jury to consider.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal history of trust disputes?

This case fits within the long history of trust litigation concerning fiduciary duties. It exemplifies the common legal battle where beneficiaries or co-trustees allege mismanagement. The outcome underscores the judicial system's reliance on evidence to prove such claims, especially when challenged by motions for summary judgment.

Q: Are there landmark Florida cases on trustee fiduciary duties that this case might relate to?

While this specific opinion doesn't cite landmark cases, it operates within the established framework of Florida trust law, which is built upon common law principles and statutes like the Florida Trust Code. Cases establishing the duties of loyalty, prudence, and impartiality for trustees would form the backdrop against which this dispute was adjudicated.

Q: What legal doctrines govern trustee responsibilities in Florida, and how does this case apply them?

Florida law, primarily through the Florida Trust Code and common law, governs trustee responsibilities, imposing duties of loyalty, care, impartiality, and accounting. This case applied these doctrines by examining whether the evidence presented by William Ivan met the threshold to prove a breach of these duties, ultimately finding it insufficient to proceed to trial.

Q: What was the docket number in William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez?

The docket number for William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez is 5D2025-0354. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can William Ivan, Individually, and as Trustee of the Bonnie Holder Ivan Trust Agreement U/A/D October 2, 2000 v. Jeff Holder, Andrew Holder, and Nominal Parties Shannon C. Gawronski, Mathew T. Holder, Benjamin J. Sanchez, and Timothy H. Sanchez be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: How did the case of William Ivan v. Jeff Holder reach the Florida District Court of Appeal?

The case reached the Florida District Court of Appeal through an appeal filed by William Ivan. He appealed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder, seeking to have the appellate court overturn that ruling.

Q: What is the significance of the 'nominal parties' listed in the case caption?

Nominal parties, such as Shannon C. Gawronski and others, are individuals or entities formally included in the lawsuit but who have no direct interest in the outcome or are joined for technical reasons, like representing an estate or a dissolved entity. Their inclusion does not affect the substantive legal dispute between the main parties.

Q: What is the role of the appellate court in reviewing a summary judgment decision?

The appellate court's role is to review the trial court's decision for legal error. In the context of summary judgment, the appellate court determines whether the trial court correctly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, based on the evidence presented.

Q: If William Ivan had presented more evidence, what might have happened procedurally?

If William Ivan had presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, the appellate court would have reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. The case would then likely have been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings, potentially including a trial, to resolve the disputed facts.