adequate remedies were available at probate. See DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So.2d 216, 218 (Fla.1981) (“[I]f adequate relief is available in a probate proceeding, then that remedy must be exhausted before a tortious interference claim may be pursued.”); cf. Martin v. Martin, 687 So.2d 903, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (appellants who sought to challenge trust on grounds of tortious interference were left with no adequate remedy at probate where pour-over provision in will was insufficient to incorporate trust; will and trust documents were executed two years apart; and any finding that decedent was susceptible to undue influence on one date would not be conclusive as to other). Rather, the will and trust must be read together. See In re Estate of Baer, 446 So.2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (<HOLDING>). While the complaint at issue is not a model
holding that terms of the trust were incorporated in the will by reference as an integral part of the will and that in the absence of evidence that the testator clearly manifested a contrary intention they continued to set forth the testators distribution plan even though the former had lost its independent legal significance holding that a court may consider documents that have not been incorporated by reference where the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effect which renders the document integral to the complaint holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications  are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties