Senior Law Clerk
In UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Meo Sanders, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2482 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025), the Sixth DCA addressed a recurring arbitration problem in trust and account-management disputes: when a beneficiary or co-trustee did not sign the account agreement, can they still be compelled to arbitrate?
The trust’s co-trustee (the brother) signed a trust management agreement with UBS containing a broad arbitration clause covering essentially any dispute “concerning any client, any account, any transaction,” or the “construction, performance, or breach” of the agreement. The other co-trustee/beneficiary later sued UBS for breach of fiduciary duty and related misconduct, including placing a freeze on the trust account, refusing to honor a check drawn on trust funds, and failing to provide statements.
Ordinarily, a nonsignatory is not bound by an arbitration clause. But Florida law recognizes several exceptions that can bind nonsignatories—one of the most important being equitable estoppel. The court applied that exception here: because the plaintiff’s claims were asserted on behalf of the trust and were grounded in UBS’s duties arising from the management relationship reflected in the account agreement, she could not simultaneously rely on the agreement to sue while rejecting the arbitration provision contained within the same agreement. In other words, the lawsuit’s theory pulled her into the contract, and the contract pulled her into arbitration.
A related practical point from AG Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Dublon, 948 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007): when you have a mix of claims—some within the scope of arbitration and others arguably outside it—courts may be able to sever arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims rather than forcing an all-or-nothing result. That issue can matter in trust disputes where some claims sound in contract/account administration and others sound in separate statutory or tort duties.
Practice pointers
If you’re suing “on the account agreement,” assume arbitration may follow. Pleading a breach of duties tied to the agreement can trigger equitable estoppel even if your client never signed.
Analyze the five nonsignatory pathways early. Florida’s recognized theories (including estoppel, agency, assumption, incorporation by reference, and veil-piercing/alter ego concepts) often decide arbitration fights before you ever reach the merits.
Map claims by source of duty. If the duty arises from the agreement or account relationship, expect arbitration arguments. If the duty arises independently (statute, tort, external fiduciary duty), you may have a better path to resist arbitration or to sever claims.
Consider severance strategy. Where only some claims are arbitrable, identify which ones truly “depend on” the agreement and which can stand independently.
Takeaway: In trust and account-management litigation, a nonsignatory is not automatically safe from arbitration. If the claims are functionally based on the agreement, equitable estoppel can bind the plaintiff to the arbitration clause that comes with it.
Arbitration fights are often won or lost at the pleading stage. We help clients assess whether claims are contract-dependent, whether nonsignatory doctrines apply, and whether severance is possible—before strategy gets locked in.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.