Margarita Chess and David Chess v. James P. Covey, as Trustee, etc., et al.,

OCR transcription; preserved printed pages are authoritative

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

MARGARITA CHESS and DAVID CHESS,
Appellants,

Vv.

JAMES P. COVEY, as Trustee of the ADDISON NIKOLI CHESS
IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST u/a/d December 22, 2010,
the ADDISON NIKOLI CHESS IRREVOCABLE TRUST
u/a/d March 12, 2013, and ADDISON NIKOLI CHESS,
Appellees.

No. 4D2024-3267
[May 6, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
Martin County; Michael Joseph McNicholas, Judge; L.T. Case No.
432024CA000125CAAXMX.

Jonathan Thomas Mann and Robin I. Bresky of Schwartz Sladkus
Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, Boca Raton, for appellants.

Robert Jeffrey Hauser of Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., West Palm Beach,
and Edward Downey and Robert Lee McElroy, IV, of Downey | McElroy,
P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of a dispute over trust expenditures for a
disabled adult who is under the care of the appellants, his parents. The
trustee sought the circuit court’s resolution of multiple disagreements
between himself and the appellants. We dismiss the appeal to the extent
the appellants seek review of the portion of the circuit court’s order
addressing compensation for the parents’ caregiving, as the face of the
order reflects that judicial labor has not ended on that matter. We
otherwise affirm.

The appellants argue the circuit court abused its discretion in
determinations it made regarding the sale of the Fort Pierce residential
condominium and reimbursement for a truck purchase. We affirm on
those points, as the record does not reflect an abuse of discretion.

The appellants also argue that the trial court erred in finding the parties
stipulated to reallocation of the trust’s investments in a specified manner.
However, we see no error. The hearing transcript reflects that the parties
agreed to utilization of the “Dynamic Dividend Strategy” for investing the
trust’s assets, and they disagreed as to which of five options should be
used in implementing the “Dynamic Dividend Strategy.” The order, read
in the context of statements made at the hearing, indicates the parties
agreed to utilization of the “Dynamic Dividend Strategy.” The order does
not indicate that the parties agreed to any one of five options. Finally,
based on the record, including statements made during the hearing, we
find the circuit court did not violate due process by ordering the sale of an
office condominium.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.
GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.