4th & 2d DCA on "in camera" review of privileged documents in probate litigation

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Juan Antunez

If you're an estate planner, it's only a matter of time until someone asks you to turn over a deceased client's estate planning file. Don't automatically say "yes," you'd be surprised (horrified!) by the ethical traps lurking in this seemingly simple request (if you want to make sure you don't get sued for getting this wrong, read Florida Bar Advisory Opinion 10-3, which I've previously written about here).

And if you're a probate lawyer, sooner or later you're going to find yourself representing a personal representative, trustee or guardian on the receiving end of discovery requests demanding privileged communications (in which case you'll want to cite F.S. 90.5021, the evidentiary privilege rule specifically designed for fiduciaries, which I've previously written about here).

So what's the link between the ethical duty to keep client information confidential and the evidentiary rule shielding this information from disclosure? Think in camera (Latin for: "in a chamber") inspection. If there's a dispute, a court's going to have to decide which documents get turned over and which don't. In order to preserve the confidentiality of information claimed to be privileged during the process of determining the propriety of those claims, there's no other logical alternative than for the court to independently review the material in camera.

Can a court say NO to the in-camera review process? NO

Patrowicz v. Wolff, --- So.3d ----, 2013 WL 1352488 (Fla. 2d DCA April 05, 2013)

In this case the same lawyer was apparently estate planner for the decedent and counsel for the personal representative of his estate (which is common). So when the plaintiff subpoenaed his records, it was in his capacity as a non-party estate planner, not probate counsel. Why does this matter? Because it means the law governing if or when these records get turned over are the ethics rules dissected in Florida Bar Advisory Opinion 10-3, not evidentiary rule F.S. 90.5021. This distinction matters.

In any event, when the subpoena was challenged, no matter what law governs the ultimate outcome the path for getting there is the same: court must conduct an in camera review. So can a probate judge simply skip this step? NO, so sayeth the 2d DCA:

Sarah R. Patrowicz, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph H. Winner, petitions this court for a writ of certiorari quashing a discovery order compelling the production of documents allegedly subject to the attorney-client privilege. Because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by ordering the production of allegedly privileged documents without first conducting an in camera inspection to determine whether the privilege applies, we grant the petition and quash the order.

. . .

“A trial court's order erroneously compelling discovery of information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege is reviewable by certiorari.” Bennett v. Berges, 84 So.3d 373, 374–75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). A party claiming that documents sought by an opposing party are protected by the attorney-client privilege is entitled to have those documents reviewed in camera by the trial court prior to their disclosure. Id. at 375. This is equally true where the subpoena on its face requests communications between attorney and client. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So.2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The failure to address whether a claimed privilege applies prior to ordering the disclosure of documents is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. See Snyder v. Value Rent–A–Car, 736 So.2d 780, 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

. . .

[T]he reason we must quash the order is that the trial court ordered production of the documents without first reviewing them and determining whether the attorney-client privilege applied. Not only did Linde specify that his objection was based on the attorney-client privilege, but the subpoena on its face explicitly requested communications between an attorney and his client. Consequently, the trial court was required to conduct an in camera inspection of the documents prior to ordering their disclosure. We therefore quash the order compelling the production of the documents and remand the case for further proceedings. 

OK, so if a court can't say no to the in-camera review process, can you? NO

Bennett v. Berges, --- So.3d ----, 2012 WL 832730 (Fla. 4th DCA March 14, 2012)

In probate litigation the same person is your judge and jury; these are all bench trials. So if you're worried something you told your lawyer is going to prejudice you in the eyes of your judge/fact-finder, having this same judge conduct the in camera review of your files isn't going to help much, the damage is done. Assuming this scenario, then maybe you're going to really want to block the in-camera review process. That may be so, but don't count on an appellate court coming to your rescue. If your judge says turn over the documents, that's it, you're done. So sayeth the 4th DCA:

Here, the trial court properly ordered an in camera review of the relevant documents claimed to be privileged. The order does not compel Petitioners to produce the documents to Respondents. After an in camera inspection, the trial court may determine that the documents are privileged and uphold Petitioners' objection to the discovery request. Accordingly, because the order requires a party to submit allegedly protected materials only for an in camera inspection, and the trial court may never require disclosure of the documents to the opposing party, we hold that the petition is premature. See Cape Canaveral, 917 So.2d at 340 (holding certiorari review was premature because no irreparable harm had been demonstrated where the order under review merely required documents to be produced for an in camera inspection and no discovery had yet been ordered); Gaton v. Health Coal., Inc., 774 So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (certiorari review of an order requiring submission of documents allegedly protected by the trade secret privilege to the courts for an in camera inspection was premature because no production had been ordered to the opposing party). But see Cebrian By & Through Cebrian v. Klein, 614 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (granting a writ of certiorari and quashing an order requiring in camera inspection of certain HRS investigation reports because the shield law found in section 415.52(2), Florida Statutes (1990), created a privilege for such reports; thus, an in camera inspection was not necessary to determine whether the material was or was not protected).

Whether the trial court has misapprehended the scope of the privilege is a question we need not decide because to date, no discovery has been ordered. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

Tags: ,

5th DCA: Does inter vivos gift of stock automatically fail if stock certificate remained registered in donor's name at death?

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Juan Antunez

Welch v. Dececco, --- So.3d ----, 2012 WL 5969623 (Fla. 5th DCA November 30, 2012)

When and "if" a gift actually occurs can be a tricky, fact-intensive issue to decide. A few years ago I wrote here about a contested gift by former major league ball player Dennis L. Rasmussen to his ex-wife. This time around the case involves an alleged gift of Exxon-Mobil stock by a man to his nephew. After uncle's death nephew claimed the stock. One problem, the stock certificate remained registered in uncle's name at the time of his death. As far as the probate judge was concerned, this one fact decided the case: nephew loses. Not so fast says the 5th DCA.

Inter vivos gift of stock does NOT automatically fail if stock remained registered in donor's name at death:

Gifts are a function of "donative intent," and just because the stock remained registered in uncle's name at the time of his death doesn't automatically mean he didn't intend to gift it to nephew. Case reversed, here's why:

In this probate matter, Frank Welch appeals the trial court's order determining that ExxonMobil stocks had not been transferred to him by his uncle, Frank Kolbl, via inter vivos gift and, thus, belonged to Kolbl's estate. Because it is unclear from the order whether the court considered all the relevant evidence in arriving at this ruling, we reverse and remand for the trial court to clarify the basis of its ruling.

The elements of an inter vivos gift are present donative intent, delivery, and acceptance. See Mulato v. Mulato, 705 So.2d 57, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Here, the trial court concluded that Welch failed to prove present donative intent, and that the evidence showed, at best, a failed testamentary intent. The court cited the fact that the stocks were still registered in Kolbl's name at his death. Although stock registration is properly considered in analyzing donative intent, it is not necessarily dispositive where, as here, other evidence is presented for and against such intent. See id. at 59–60, 62; Freedman v. Freedman, 345 So.2d 834, 836–37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Sullivan v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 230 So.2d 18, 18–21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Kuebler v. Kuebler, 131 So.2d 211, 212–16, 218–19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); Eulette v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Beane, 101 So.2d 603, 604–05 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). It is unclear from the trial court's order whether the court focused exclusively on the stock registration, or properly considered it as one fact along with all the other evidence relevant to donative intent.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter for the trial court to clarify whether it considered all the relevant evidence, and if not, to reconsider its ruling on the basis of the evidence presented.

When is a gift of stock complete for tax purposes?

It's impossible to predict with 100% certainty if your particular probate judge is going to consider the particular facts of your specific case and conclude the three elements of a completed gift have been proven: "present donative intent, delivery, and acceptance." One way to give your judge some guidance (and your client some sense of how weak or strong his case is) is to look to the detailed regulations and common law developed in the tax context for determining when a gift of stock is complete. If under the facts of your case the gift would have been complete for tax purposes, that's a powerful argument for the same conclusion as a matter of state law, and vice versa. Charities make it their business to put this kind of information on the web for potential donors of stock, so it's easily accessible if you know what you're looking for. See here, here, here and here for examples.

Tags:

AAA's new Wills and Trusts Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Juan Antunez

As end users of Florida's court system, trusts and estates lawyers know all too well the negative consequences of an underfunded judiciary. What may not be as clearly apparent is that our clients do have the power to largely "opt out" of the public court system. How? Think alternative dispute resolution or ADR. In Florida there are no jury trials in contested probate or trust proceedings, so these cases lend themselves to privately funded and managed ADR mechanisms, including mandatory arbitration.

F.S. 731.401: Statutory Authorization of Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Wills & Trusts:

The trouble with arbitration clauses in wills and trusts is that historically it was unclear if a client could impose mandatory arbitration on the beneficiaries of his or her estate/trust. In Florida this uncertainty was eliminated in 2007 with the adoption of F.S. 731.401, expressly authorizing mandatory arbitration clauses in wills and trusts (which I wrote about here). In that blog post I also discussed a few sample arbitration clauses for wills and trusts, including the sample clause published by the American Arbitration Association or AAA (click here) and the sample clauses provided in an ACTEC article entitled Resolving Disputes with Ease and Grace.

Making Arbitration Clauses Work in Real Life: Think Rules and Procedure:

What's difficult about drafting effective arbitration clauses is incorporating a set of rules and procedures the parties and their arbitrators can rely on to resolve disputes privately, promptly and economically. One option is to draft these rules yourself and include them in your wills and trusts. I don't like that approach. First, a complete set of arbitration rules can run for dozens of pages, making it impractical to include them in a will or trust agreement. More importantly, I'm an expert in trusts and estates law, not arbitration law. The better alternative is to incorporate by reference a pre-existing set of arbitration rules tailored for wills and trusts that also include all of the generally applicable "best practices" an arbitration specialist would draft for. Ideally, you'd also want to incorporate a set of arbitration rules that gets revised from time to time to keep up with evolving arbitration norms and legal requirements.

To my knowledge the only publicly-available arbitration rules meeting all of these requirements are the rules published by AAA. Which is why I keep up with their rules and was interested to learn that effective June 1, 2012 they'd been amended and re-published. Here's an excerpt from the introduction to the PDF version of AAA's new Wills and Trusts Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures:

Every year billions of dollars are administered by executors and trustees. Wills, transferring property to beneficiaries, are the most frequently used instruments, but family trusts, charitable trusts, and commercial trusts are growing in use and scope. Occasionally, disputes arise over whether those funds are being properly administered and whether the governing will or trust is being interpreted correctly by the fiduciary. . . . Many of these disputes can be resolved by the use of mediation or arbitration, processes that provide parties with an alternative means to resolve their disputes. . . . Arbitration is an effective way to resolve these disputes privately, promptly, and economically, utilizing as the arbitrator a lawyer or lawyers with substantial experience in the area of wills, trusts and estates.

. . . The AAA Wills and Trusts Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures provide that the arbitrator, at his or her discretion, may provide for the protection of unrepresented parties, including the use of a guardian ad litem to represent any minor, incapacitated, or unborn beneficiary . A written reasoned award is required under the AAA Wills and Trusts Rules. Testators or settlors can require that future disputes be arbitrated by inserting the following clause into their wills and trusts in most jurisdictions.

Opting out of the public court system:

From my perspective there are two chief selling points for mandatory arbitration clauses in trusts and wills. First, if your arbitration clause is properly drafted, your case gets decided by a specialized trusts and estates lawyer (or lawyers) with real-life experience handling complex estate matters (usually 10+ years) vs. a randomly assigned state-court judge, who almost never has any private-practice experience dealing with complex estate matters (most judges are former prosecutors). Second, by privatizing the process the parties can, to the extent permitted by F.S. 731.401 (and there are limitations), opt out of the dysfunctions inherent to an overworked and underfunded state court system. This second point is what tips the scales for me.

In 1994 Yale Law professor John H. Langbein reviewed Undue Influence: The Epic Battle for the Johnson & Johnson Fortune, by David Margolick. In his book Margolick reported on a will contest litigated in New York City's probate court system involving heirs to the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical fortune of J. Seward Johnson, Sr., who died at age eighty-seven in 1983. The case was litigated by the best T&E legal talent from some of the largest, most well-regarded Wall Street firms. And yet, if you believe Margolick's reporting, a dysfunctional court system personified by the judge overseeing the case, Surrogate Marie Lambert, resulted in an ugly spectacle demeaning all involved. As famed NYC attorney William D. Zabel wrote here, "the parties decided to settle. The Will was, to put it charitably, totally rewritten by the contestants. The result: any resemblance to Seward Johnson’s actual last Will seemed purely coincidental."

In Prof. Langbein's review of Margolick's book, published as Will Contests, 103 Yale L.J. 2039 (1994), he lambasts the estate planners involved in the Johnson & Johnson case for not anticipating the dysfunctions inherent to many of our probate court systems.

There have long been difficulties in staffing the American probate bench, and some of the people who serve there-such as Surrogate Marie Lambert, whose partisanship disfigured the trial of the Seward Johnson estate-are menacing. Margolick supplies a chilling collection of instances of Lambert's incessant one-sidedness and impropriety. (E.g., 313, 407, 424, 479, 486, 494, 523-24, 546-47, 564, 568, 576, 585) He leaves open the question of whether she was looking to be bribed (459, 550) or whether her prejudgment was merely gratuitous.

I would not wish to imply that Marie Lambert typifies the American probate bench, or that competent and devoted judges are not to be found in American probate courts. Occasionally, splendid figures such as James Wade in Denver or Floyd Probst in Atlanta grace the probate bench. My point is simply that the integrity and ability of the American probate bench has so often been found wanting that confidence in the predictability and correctness of adjudication in these courts has been impaired. Americans can only look with envy to the esteemed and meritocratic chancery bench that conducts probate adjudication in English and Commonwealth jurisdictions.

The risk of error or worse in American probate adjudication is not adequately offset by the prospect of appellate review. Because the presumption of correctness that attaches to the trial court's findings of fact is so difficult to overcome on appeal, Marie Lambert had little to fear. She was virtually a potentate. . . . Indeed, Margolick asserts that in New York, Marie Lambert was thought to be especially immune from oversight on account of the perverse financial incentives of the appellate judges. In previous scrapes, “the judges of the Appellate Division, her ostensible superiors, went easy on her; once they left the bench, they wanted appointments” (314) to guardianships or other lucrative posts that, especially in New York, are treated as patronage plums within the gift of the surrogate.

Incorporating mandatory arbitration clauses in our wills and trusts is one way of anticipating the dysfunctions inherent to many of our probate court systems and planning accordingly. Arbitration may not be perfect, but at least you get some say in who your judge is and what his or her minimum qualifications are. And in the arbitration process (which is privately funded) you also have a fighting chance of getting your arbitrator to actually read your briefs and invest the time and energy needed to thoughtfully evaluate the complex tax, state law and family dynamics underlying these cases (a luxury that's all but impossible in a state court system that forces judges to juggle hundreds of cases at a time with little or no support). The alternative to a privately financed and managed arbitration proceeding is a public court system that usually works, but not always. And when it does fall short, it's not just bad, it's ugly.

Tags:

3d DCA says NO to adoption of 42 year old girlfriend; ends ploy to raid 1/3 share of $300 million trust fund

Posted on April 8, 2013 by Juan Antunez

Goodman v. Goodman, --- So.3d ----, 2013 WL 1222944 (Fla. 3d DCA March 27, 2013)

In a sharply worded opinion the 3d DCA struck down an order by Miami trial-court Judge Antonio Marin allowing embattled Palm Beach polo tycoon John B. Goodman to adopt his 42-year old girlfriend. The apparent intent behind the adoption was a ploy to qualify the girlfriend for a 1/3 share of a $300 million trust otherwise benefiting Mr. Goodman's two minor children from a prior marriage. According to the 3d DCA, judge Marin prohibited the minor children's mother/guardian from intervening in the adoption proceeding "because it would allow for endless intervention by the children to contest the judgment." What?! 

Thankfully the 3d DCA saw things differently. Not only did the 3d DCA rule mom should have been permitted to intervene, rather than sending the case back to judge Marin, they summarily voided the adoption as a fraud (I'll explain the fraud ruling in a moment).

Here's an excerpt from a SunSentinal piece reporting on the 3d DCA's ruling and the case's "back-story" entitled Goodman can't adopt 43-year-old girlfriend, court rules:

Embattled polo mogul John Goodman can't adopt his 43-year-old girlfriend after all, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The adoption would have enabled girlfriend Heather Hutchins to claim a third of a $300 million trust fund established for Goodman's two children, both younger than 18.

The 49-year-old multimillionaire's bid to assume parental custody of Hutchins was voided because he didn't notify his ex-wife Carroll Goodman, the mother of the children, until after the adoption appeals process had passed in January 2012, according to a Third District Court of Appeal ruling.

. . .

It's the latest episode in the ongoing legal saga surrounding Goodman, who was sentenced to 16 years in connection with the Feb. 12, 2010 death of Scott Patrick Wilson, 23. Goodman's Bentley ran a stop sign and collided with Wilson's Hyundai, killing Wilson.

Convicted of DUI/manslaughter in March 2012, Goodman remains on house arrest at his Wellington mansion on a $7 million appellate bond.

Earlier this year, he reached a $46 million settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Wilson's parents Lili and William — whose attorneys have said Goodman's adoption attempt was a brazen bid to shield his assets from the grieving parents.

The Wilsons, divorced since 2007, have been fighting in court over their late son's ashes. In February, a county court judge denied William Wilson's request to split up the ashes.

On Wednesday, the appellate court said Goodman's adoption of Hutchins "constituted a fraud on the court" because he intentionally concealed the adoption from his wife, who was entitled to be made aware of the action because it "directly, immediately, and financially impacted the children."

"Goodman's concealment of the adoption proceeding deprived the children of an opportunity to address the trial court and present their objections," the decision stated.

The adoption of Hutchins was approved in Miami in 2011, but the appeals court decided that because Carroll Goodman wasn't notified, she had no opportunity to protect her childrens' financial interests from being encroached upon by Hutchins.

Goodman, who founded the International Polo Club Palm Beach in Wellington, is heir to a multimillion-dollar Texas manufacturing fortune.

So why should trusts and estates lawyers care about adult adoptions?

Many states, including Florida (F.S. 63.042), allow adult adoptions. These laws were primarily intended for situations like a stepparent adopting a stepchild later in life. According to a rule of construction found in our probate code, adoptees are automatically presumed to be descendants of their adoptive parents for class gift purposes. F.S. 732.608. So if a will or trust benefits someone's "descendants" as a class (i.e., without specifically naming them), that class of beneficiaries is presumed to include adoptees. This rule of construction opens the door to manipulation of multigenerational trusts via adult adoptions.

For example, unable to legally marry in most states, some same-sex couples have used the adult-adoption process to establish inheritance rights for their partners. I previously wrote here about the last such case to make headlines; it involved a claim by an adult adoptee to a share of the trust created by Thomas John Watson, Jr., of IBM fame.

Now back to the 3d DCA's fraud ruling:

The adult-adoption order at the center of the 3d DCA's opinion wasn't voided on substantive grounds (e.g., it was contrary to the settlor's intent, or contrary to public policy, or otherwise per se illegal), it was voided for procedural reasons: Mr. Goodman's intentional lack of notice to interested parties (i.e., the minor children's mother/guardian). According to the 3d DCA, this intentional deception amounted to fraud upon the court.

Presumably Mr. Goodman knew his ex-wife wasn't going to stand idly by as he diluted their children's share of the family trust in favor of his girlfriend. Rather than face this objection head-on and honestly, Mr. Goodman kept the adoption proceeding secret until after the adoption order was entered and no longer subject to appeal. What's scary about this case (and instructive for litigators) is that this ploy actually worked at the trial-court level?! Even after the trial-court judge was made aware of Mr. Goodman's deception, he refused to do anything about it. Fortunately the 3d DCA was less willing to put up with this kind of gamesmanship.

[T]he guardian and Carroll were entitled to notice. It is undisputed that neither the guardian nor Carroll received timely notice of the adoption proceeding. Goodman notified them of the adoption proceeding in January 2012, after the period to appeal the Final Judgment of Adult Adoption had expired.[FN1] The adoption converted [Goodman's girlfriend] into an immediate beneficiary of the trusts and entitled her to one-third of the corpus of the trusts. It hardly could be said that this conversion did not threaten the financial interests of the minor children, whose interests decreased from one-half to one-third. Thus, we hold that . . . the guardian and Carroll were entitled to notice of the adoption proceeding, pursuant to section 63.182(2)(a).

FN1. This lack of notice can only be viewed as none other than an act of concealment, an act which Goodman purposefully instituted to suppress circumstances he knew fully well ought to have been made known to the guardian and Carroll. As we shall discuss further, Goodman committed fraud on the court in doing so.

. . .

The guardian and Carroll correctly pointed out that this lack of notice violated the minor children's due process rights. We reiterate that Hutchins' adoption directly, immediately, and financially impacted the children. Goodman's concealment of the adoption proceeding deprived the children of an opportunity to address the trial court and present their objections. . . .

Furthermore, we determine that the judgment entered in the adoption proceeding is void. This Court previously has stated that “[a] violation of the due process guarantee of notice and an opportunity to be heard renders the judgment void.” . . . This Court also has ruled that the failure to give due process notice and the failure to grant a necessary party's motion to intervene are defects that can render a judgment void. . . .

We therefore set aside the Final Judgment of Adult Adoption because Goodman's deliberate failure to provide notice of the adoption to the guardian and Carroll constituted a fraud on the court. In Florida, a decree of adoption may be set aside based on fraud in the proceedings. . . . Goodman committed extrinsic fraud on the court when he failed to give notice of the adoption to the appellants until after the appeals period had expired. See Richard v. McKesson, 774 So.2d 838, 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that contingent beneficiary to a trust had standing to challenge the adoption had she known about and was not precluded from collaterally attacking the adoption). 

The only other Florida appellate decision involving an adult adoption in the trust context I could find was the 4th DCA opinion cited above by the 3d DCA: Richard v. McKesson, 774 So.2d 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In that case the adult adoption was also intended to give the adoptee inheritance rights under a pre-existing trust. As in this case, the adult adoption proceeding was kept secret from the pre-existing beneficiary of the trust. As in this case, that adoption order was subject to attack on fraud-upon-the-court grounds.

What about settlor intent?

But what if Mr. Goodman had given his ex-wife notice of the adoption proceeding? Would the result have been the same? Maybe, but not for the same reasons. It seems to me that regardless of whether or not the adoption is valid, the issue of settlor intent remains. At the time of the trust's creation, was it intended to benefit future adult adoptees? If the answer to that question is NO, then regardless of whether or not the adoption is valid, the adult adoptee gets nothing under the trust. That's what happened in a DNA case I wrote about here: no matter what the DNA science proved, settlor intent remained the outcome-determinitive question for trust-administration purposes. Same thing for adult adoptions: no matter how legally valid the adoption might be, settlor intent remains the outcome-determinitive question for trust-administration purposes.

Most courts that have addressed the issue in terms of settlor intent have ruled against the adult adoptee. See, e.g., Cross v. Cross, 177 Ill.App.3d 588, 126 Ill.Dec. 801, 532 N.E.2d 486 (1988) (Adoption of adult solely for purpose of making him heir of an ancestor under terms of testamentary instrument known and in existence at time of adoption is act of subterfuge, does great violence to intent and purpose of adoption laws, and should not be permitted.) But sometimes adult adoptees do win these cases. See, e.g., In re Trust Created by Nixon, 277 Neb. 546, 763 N.W.2d 404 (Neb. Apr 10, 2009) (Adult adopted by trust settlor's daughter was daughter's child, and thus adoptee became the sole beneficiary of trust upon daughter's death, under trust document which provided that, upon daughter's death, the trust was to be divided among her living children, where trust settlor's will did not specify that the term “children” was to exclude adopted children.)

How would a Florida appellate court rule in this scenario? Who knows. There are no Florida appellate opinions on point.

Lesson learned?

First, the law in Florida is now clear on at least one point in cases involving trusts and adult adoptees: you can't get these orders in secret, you must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to all other pre-existing beneficiaries of the trust pursuant to section 63.182(2)(a).

Second, this type of case cries out for a drafting solution at the estate planning phase. Including a simple adoption clause in a client's will or trust should spare all involved the stress and financial strain inherent to any form of inheritance litigation. Here's the clause we use in my office, I'm sure there are lots of good alternate clauses floating around out there. Just pick one and use it.

Sample Adoption Clause:

Effect of Adoption. A legally adopted child (and any descendants of that child) will be regarded as a descendant of the adopting parent only if the petition for adoption was filed with the court before the child’s eighteenth birthday. If the legal relationship between a parent and child is terminated by a court while the parent is alive, that child and that child’s descendants will not be regarded as descendants of that parent. If a parent dies and the legal relationship with that deceased parent’s child had not been terminated before that parent’s death, the deceased parent’s child and that child’s descendants will continue to be regarded as descendants of the deceased parent even if the child is later adopted by another person.

Tags:

Before the Party's Over: Arguments For and Against Pre-Death Will Contests

Posted on March 27, 2013 by Juan Antunez

Certainty. It's the Holy Grail of estate planning and non-existent in any will contest. Here's how one judge put it over a century ago:

"[P]ost mortem squabblings and contests on mental condition . . . have made a will the least secure of all human dealings, and made it doubtful whether in some regions insanity is not accepted as the normal condition of testators." 

Lloyd v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 23 N.W. 28 (Mich. 1885).

Worst Evidence Rule = NO Certainty:

All litigation is uncertain, but why are will contests especially so? Think "worst evidence rule," a term coined by famed Yale Law professor John H. Langbein, in Will Contests, 103 Yale L.J. 2039 (1994). In most states (including Florida, see F.S. 732.518) you're barred as a matter of law from litigating the validity of a will until after the single most important witness -- the testator -- is dead. Which means we're forced to litigate these cases based in large part on the worst evidence available: the self-interested hearsay testimony of those claiming a right to the testator's estate.

So what's to be done? One possible solution is obtaining a final order validating a will in a guardianship proceeding while the testator is still alive; it worked in a California case I wrote about here. A better idea is adopting legislation expressly authorizing pre-death will contests.

Pre-Death Will Contest = Certainty:

State legislators have experimented with pre-death will contests for generations. According to Prof. Beyer in Will Contests - Prediction and Prevention, the first such statute was passed in 1883 in Michigan, and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws seriously considered the idea in the early 1980's. As explained by Prof. Beyer, if your goal is greater certainty, a pre-death will contest or "ante-mortem probate" is your best solution.

Ante-mortem probate has the potential of greatly improving the legal system's effective transmittal of an individual's wealth by providing the testator with greater certainty that the testator's desires for the distribution of property will be fulfilled and designation of fiduciaries followed according to the testator's written declaration. Because the validity of the will would be determined prior to the testator's death, at a time when all relevant evidence is before the court, will contests would be greatly reduced. In addition, ante-mortem probate would lead to more efficient use of scarce and valuable resources as less court time is expended dealing with spurious will contests and fewer estate funds are dissipated defending those contests.

Admittedly, ante-mortem probate is not a panacea. The ante-mortem process . . . may be extremely disruptive to the testator and the testator's family. The testator may not wish to disclose the contents of the will or to face the potential embarrassment that may occur if testamentary capacity is litigated. Additionally, the process involves additional costs and may raise due process and conflict of laws problems. The benefits of ante-mortem probate, however, should not be withheld from the public merely because the technique contains flaws or because it may be difficult to determine the proper model to use. 

Today there are four states expressly authorizing pre-death will contests by statute: Arkansas, North Dakota, Ohio and Alaska. The pro's and con's of these statutes is the subject of a recent article in the ABA's Probate & Property Magazine entitled Before the Party's Over: The Arguments For and Against Pre-Death Will Contests. In my opinion, the best part of this article is the very funny cover illustration by Max Licht. On a more serious note, anything we can do to keep up the drumbeat in favor of this much-needed legislation is a good thing, and hopefully this article gets more people thinking about it.

Lesson learned?

If you're a working lawyer, it's easy to dismiss talk of pre-death will contests as theoretical mumbo jumbo only academics have the luxury of fooling around with. That would be a mistake. Wrapping our heads around the "worst evidence" problem makes us better practitioners, especially when we have our estate planning hats on. If the risk of a future challenge is present, we can't naively rely on the fact that there is no doubt the client has capacity and is acting of his own free will, we need to anticipate how the worst-evidence rule can undermine the best laid plans, and proactively stack the deck in the client's favor through smart defensive planning. For an excellent discussion of the more commonly used defensive-planning techniques you'll want to read Will Contests - Prediction and Prevention.

Tags: ,

2d DCA: Can a judge cut your attorney's fees in a contested guardianship proceeding without explaining why?

Posted on March 13, 2013 by Juan Antunez

In re Guardianship of Ansley, 94 So.3d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA August 17, 2012)

As I recently wrote here, a judge's attorney's fee order is automatically subject to reversal if it doesn't contain detailed findings of fact explaining why and how the judge arrived at his or her final fee-award conclusions.

Transparency in this context is not a luxury; it's the bare minimum we have a right to expect of our judiciary. Here's how our supreme court articulated this crucially important point in Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985):

[G]reat concern has been focused on a perceived lack of objectivity and uniformity in court-determined reasonable attorney fees. Some time ago, this Court recognized the impact of attorneys' fees on the credibility of the court system and the legal profession when we stated:

There is but little analogy between the elements that control the determination of a lawyer's fee and those which determine the compensation of skilled craftsmen in other fields. Lawyers are officers of the court. The court is an instrument of society for the administration of justice. Justice should be administered economically, efficiently, and expeditiously. The attorney's fee is, therefore, a very important factor in the administration of justice, and if it is not determined with proper relation to that fact it results in a species of social malpractice that undermines the confidence of the public in the bench and bar. It does more than that. It brings the court into disrepute and destroys its power to perform adequately the function of its creation.

Baruch v. Giblin, 122 Fla. 59, 63, 164 So. 831, 833 (1935).

Can a judge cut your attorney's fees in a contested guardianship proceeding without explaining why? NO

Turning now to the linked-to case above. In this contested guardianship proceeding the former guardian's attorney's fees were contested. As explained by the 2d DCA, at the end of the fee hearing the petitioning attorney submitted a proposed fee order containing the kind of detailed findings of fact necessary for a properly drafted fee order. In other words, the petitioning attorney did his job. The trial judge then simply crossed out the $21,694.52 figure reflected at the end of the proposed fee order and wrote the amount of $16,520 above it. The trial judge gave no explanation for why he reduced the fee request by almost 1/4 or $5,174. In other words, as explained by the 2d DCA, the trial judge did not do his job.

The amount that the circuit court authorized the guardian to pay Mr. Martin is obviously less than the sum supported by the findings in the order concerning the reasonable hourly rates, the time expended, and the expenses incurred. Undeniably, there is an internal inconsistency in the order; the amount of fees and expenses awarded does not equal the amount of fees and expenses that the circuit court found were reasonable. 

. . .

A comparison of the amount of the actual award in the order under review and the amount requested by Mr. Martin indicates that the circuit court intended to award less than the full amount sought in the petition. However, we do not know what led to the circuit court's ruling. The above-noted internal inconsistency in the order results in the lack of any meaningful findings concerning the reasonable hourly rates and the number of hours compensated. The order also omits any statement of other factors that the circuit court considered in reducing the amount requested. These deficiencies make it impossible for this court to engage in meaningful appellate review of the order on appeal.  . . . 

In short, we are unable to determine the basis for the circuit court's award. It follows that we also cannot determine whether there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the award. Accordingly, we reverse the order under review. . . . We remand for the circuit court to enter a new order that sets forth the basis for the award, including the hours determined to be compensable, the hourly rate, and the other factors considered in arriving at the award. . . . The order must also itemize the costs allowed.

The 2d DCA obviously reached the right conclusion; all they're doing is telling the trial judge to explain his ruling. Which is why it was disappointing to read Judge Villanti's special concurrence in which he makes clear he doesn't really understand why it's so important for judge's to explain their fee rulings.

While Mr. Martin is entitled to ask the court to specify exactly why it chose the amount it did, what is really to be gained in so asking? In my view, a request for an order that identifies how Mr. Martin overcharged the ward's estate in the hopes that the trial court will suddenly agree that it abused its discretion in not awarding the full amount requested in the first instance is simply fodder for further litigation and a second appeal.

Respectfully, does Judge Villanti not understand that the amount of the fee ruling isn't the point of the majority's opinion (if properly drafted, the amount of a fee order is almost untouchable on appeal); what really matters in terms of this appellate decision is the message it sends to trial judges: how you explain your fee rulings is just as important as what your final rulings are. In fact, as stated by our supreme court, not explaining yourself in a fee order is "a species of social malpractice" that "brings the court into disrepute and destroys its power to perform adequately the function of its creation." So yes, there is much to be gained by sending this case back to the trial judge and ordering him to please explain the basis of his ruling.

Tags: ,

U.S. Supreme Court to decide when a breach-of-trust judgment against a former trustee is dischargeable in bankruptcy

Posted on March 11, 2013 by Juan Antunez

Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., 133 S.Ct. 526 (U.S. October 29, 2012) [docket]

Trusts and estates cases rarely make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, so when they do it's big news [e.g., see here]. This time around the Supreme Court's granted cert in a case arising out of our very own 11th Circuit in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A. (In re Bullock), 670 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir.2012). The case involves a former trustee (Mr. Bullock) who declared bankruptcy in order to wipe away a breach of trust judgment.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) a judgment entered against a fiduciary for fraud or misappropriation of trust funds (i.e., "defalcation") is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I've previously written about this rule here and here as applied both to trustees and personal representatives. 

What's interesting about this case is that all of the courts who have reviewed the facts agree the trustee's actions giving rise to the original judgment against him actually caused no economic harm to the trust's assets and that he apparently acted innocently at all times. For a good summary of the facts see here, here. Based on these facts, the U.S. Supreme Court's going to have to decide what level of mens rea (if any) is necessary to trigger the non-discharge rule for defalcation by trustees.

Here's how the "question presented" for the Supreme Court in this case was framed by the trustee:

What degree of misconduct by a trustee constitutes "defalcation" under §523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code that disqualifies the errant trustee's resulting debt from a bankruptcy discharge - and does it include actions that result in no loss of trust property?

According to the 11th Circuit's opinion, there's a wide split among the circuit courts as to the meaning of defalcation under § 523(a)(4).

This Court recognizes that there is a split among the circuits regarding the meaning of defalcation under § 523(a)(4). . . .

The Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have concluded that even an innocent act by a fiduciary can be a defalcation. . . .

The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits require a showing of recklessness by the fiduciary. . . .

The First and Second Circuits require a showing of extreme recklessness. . . .

The Third Circuit has not addressed the issue, and the Tenth Circuit has made the brief statement in an unpublished opinion that defalcation requires some portion of misconduct. 

The trustee unsuccessfully argued in favor of the 1st and 2d Circuits' "extreme recklessness" standard, which apparently would have resulted in a win for him. The 11th Circuit instead adopted the non-extreme recklessness standard applied by the 5th, 6th and 7th Circuits. The 11th Circuit held the former trustee's judgment should NOT be discharged because even if he acted innocently, as a trustee he should have known his actions were improper, thus he acted recklessly.

Applying the recklessness standard for defalcation to the facts of the instant case, this Court concludes that the bankruptcy court was correct in determining that Bullock committed a defalcation by making the three loans while he was the trustee of his father's trust. Because Bullock was the trustee of the trust, he certainly should have known that he was engaging in self-dealing, given that he knowingly benefitted from the loans. Thus, his conduct can be characterized as objectively reckless, and as such, it rises to the level of a defalcation under § 523(a)(4). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court's order must be affirmed on the issue of whether the Illinois judgment debt was non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(4) as a debt arising from a defalcation while Bullock was acting in a fiduciary capacity. 

What do we mean by "defalcation" as applied to fiduciaries, and should we apply a strict-liability standard for culpability or require some level of intentional malfeasance? These are fundamental questions for any trusts and estates litigator, which will make the U.S. Supreme Court's take on this case a must-read even if (like me) you have no intention of ever setting foot in a bankruptcy court. Stay tuned for more . . . 

Tags:

Predicting the future of the U.S. estate tax

Posted on March 5, 2013 by Juan Antunez

Anyone can tell you what the current state of the law is when it comes to the federal estate and gift tax rules (news flash: for the first time in over a decade they're permanent, click here). For those of us in the trenches, the more interesting question is "what's next?" 

If I had to bet on what the next "big thing" in the estate-tax world is going to be, I'd go with one of the five "structural reforms" proposed by the President in his 2013 budget (and explained/scored in this recently published Congressional Research Service report). None of the ideas covered in the CRS Report is new, which means they've all demonstrated staying power (usually a good predictor of future enactment). And all of the proposed fixes have the added political bonus of increasing tax revenues without raising tax rates or lowering the exemption amount.

Want to know the future? Read on . . . 

CRS Report:

[T]he current size of the exemption and the rate of tax have been set in permanent tax law, and there is not much indication of a reconsideration. There are, however, some more narrow proposals aimed at abuse that have been included in some other legislation and in the President’s budget proposals. These provisions are described below. All of the estimates of revenue gain are for FY2013-FY2022 and are obtained from the FY2013 budget proposals. Most of the provisions were also estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation and this source is used in the discussion below except in one case. Note that estimated budget effects would be altered and presumably reduced by the recent estate tax legislation.

[1] Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts

A Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT) is a trust that allows the grantor to receive an annuity, with any remaining assets transferred to the trust recipient. The value of the gift is reduced by the value of the assets used to fund the annuity. If the assets in the trust appreciate substantially, then virtually all of the gift can be reduced by the value of the annuity, while still providing a substantial ultimate gift to the recipient. If the grantor dies during the annuity period, the remaining value of the annuity is included in the estate. This trust approach could be a method of transferring assets roughly tax free if the assets appreciate at a rate faster than the discount rate used to value the annuity. The grantor needs to survive over the period of the annuity. To assure the latter will be likely to occur, many of these trusts have very short annuity periods, as short as two years. The GRAT proposal contained in H.R. 4849 in the 111th Congress and in the President’s budget proposals would impose a minimum annuity term of 10 years, disallow any decline in the annuity, and require a non-zero remainder interest. The provision was estimated to raise $3.6 billion over 10 years.

[2] Minority Discounts

There are existing restrictions to keep estates from engaging in artificial actions designed to reduce the value of estates (such as freezes on assets). As discussed above, courts sometimes allow estates to reduce the fair-market value when assets are left in family partnerships in which no one has a majority control. These discounts have even been allowed when assets are in cash and readily marketable securities, and the setting up of these family partnerships has become an estate tax avoidance tool. A provision in the Administration’s proposal would disallow these discounts. The JCT did not estimate this provision because of the lack of specific detail, but the Administration’s estimate was $18.1 billion over 10 years.

[3] Consistent Valuation

Currently, there is no explicit rule preventing a low valuation of fair-market value for an estate and a high valuation of the asset for purposes of stepped up basis in the hands of the heir. A low value of an asset reduces the estate tax, but a high value (because it reduces the amount of gain) reduces the capital gains tax. Requiring the same value for both purposes was projected to raise $3 billion over 10 years.

[4] Limit the Duration of Generation-Skipping Trusts

When generation-skipping transfers are made to a trust, the estate tax exemption applicable to them also exempts the associated earnings during the trust lifetime. In the past, a trust life has been limited because most states had a Rule Against Perpetuities that generally limited trusts to a 21-year life. Most of these laws have been eliminated. This Administration proposal would limit the life of a GST trust to 90 years. The revenue effect would be negligible over the next 10 years.

[5] Coordinate Grantor Trusts Income and Transfer Tax Rules

In a grantor trust, an individual is treated as owner for income tax purposes. However, the trust and the individual are treated as separate persons for purposes of the estate and gift tax. This proposal from the Administration would include the assets of the trust in the grantors estate and subject distributions to the gift tax if the grantor is the owner for income tax purposes. If the grantor ceases to be the owner, the assets would be subject to a gift tax. This proposal was projected to raise $3.3 billion over 10 years.

Tags: , ,

3d DCA: Can arguing for the appointment of a court-appointed guardian to handle litigation for an incapacitated adult if she previously executed a valid DPOA get you (and your lawyer) sanctioned?

Posted on February 18, 2013 by Juan Antunez

Albelo v. Southern Oak Ins. Co., --- So.3d ----, 2013 WL 440199 (Fla. 3d DCA February 06, 2013)

Durable powers of attorney (DPOA's) empower disabled or incapacitated adults to manage their business and personal affairs privately and without court supervision. This includes handling litigation. That's the law. If you don't like it, get the law changed . . . but don't try to wish the issue away by making frivolous arguments in court.

In In re Estate of Schiver, 441 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), the 5th DCA held that an attorney-in-fact acting pursuant to a properly drafted DPOA could elect the principal's right to an elective share. According to the 5th DCA:

[DPOA's have] the beneficial effect of avoiding the time, expense and embarrassment involved in having to establish guardianships for incompetent persons. . . . The holder of a [DPOA] is appointed by the donor of the power, and essentially performs the same functions as would a court appointed guardian. While not a “guardian” in the legal sense, the attorney in fact has fiduciary duties similar in nature.

In Smith v. Lynch, 821 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the 4th DCA upheld a probate judge's refusal to appoint a guardian for a legally incapacitated adult who had previously executed a valid DPOA. According to the 4th DCA "the appointment of a guardian would serve no useful purpose and would unnecessarily interfere with the family.” In support of its decision, the 4th DCA cited F.S. 744.344, which provides that an “order appointing a guardian must be consistent with the incapacitated person's welfare and safety, must be the least restrictive appropriate alternative, and must reserve to the incapacitated person the right to make decisions in matters commensurate with the person's ability to do so.”

Bottom line, our legislature intended DPOA's to be private, non-court supervised, less restrictive alternatives to guardianships. This is basic stuff for Florida probate lawyers. But is it so basic it's frivolous to even argue otherwise? YES.

3d DCA: 57.105 sanctions triggered by arguing against DPOA and for guardianship:

In the linked-to case above a 78-year old woman executed a valid DPOA in favor of her son. Acting under the authority of this DPOA, son sued mom's property-insurance company (Southern Oak Insurance Company) seeking to recover damages to mom's home caused by a burglary. By the time son filed suit on mom's behalf it was undisputed she was suffering from age-related cognitive disabilities. According to Southern Oak this meant mom's claim could only be prosecuted by a court-appointed guardian. For reasons unexplained in the 3d DCA's opinion, Southern Oak somehow convinced the trial judge to buy into its argument, resulting in a dismissal of mom's lawsuit. This is the kind of ruling that drives probate lawyers nuts. On appeal, it apparently  struck a nerve with the 3d DCA as well (in a bad way!).

This is an appeal by an octogenarian, Maximiliana Albelo, from a trial court order dismissing her premises liability complaint with prejudice, for failure to file a petition in probate to determine her own incapacity. We summarily reverse the order on appeal and grant Albelo's motion for an award of appellate attorney fees pursuant to section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2011). We write only to explain the reasons for our award of sanctions against Southern Oak Insurance Company and its counsel.

This is a garden-variety premises liability claim brought by Albelo for damages to her home caused by a burglary. The burglary and the existence of a loss are conceded. It is equally undisputed Albelo suffers from age-related cognitive disabilities. Although Southern Oak did not receive notice of the claim until more than a year after the burglary, the company paid $1690 on her claim. A few months later, Albelo filed a sworn proof of loss, supported by a public adjuster's estimate in the amount of $57,760.66. Southern Oak is of the view the sworn claim is fraudulent and instigated not by Albelo, but rather by her son. Southern Oak also is concerned about the binding effect a judgment obtained by Albelo might have against it in the future.

Albelo responds that in April 2007—one month before the burglary, when she was seventy-eight years old—she duly executed a Durable Power of Attorney (DPA) in favor of her son. Section 709.2119, Florida Statutes (2012), regulating powers of attorneys and similar instruments, provides explicit protection to Southern Oak in the circumstances of this case. It states:

(1)(a) A third person who in good faith accepts a power of attorney that appears to be executed in the manner required by law at the time of its execution may rely upon the power of attorney and the actions of the agent which are reasonably within the scope of the agent's authority and may enforce any obligation created by the actions of the agent as if:

1. The power of attorney were genuine, valid, and still in effect;

2. The agent's authority were genuine, valid, and still in effect; and

3. The authority of the officer executing for or on behalf of a financial institution that has trust powers and acting as agent is genuine, valid, and still in effect.

§ 709.2119. Southern Oak does not contest the formalities of execution and has not sought to rescind the power of attorney on the ground Albelo was incompetent at the time she executed the document. Southern Oak's and its counsel's persistence in arguing Albelo was required to seek a guardian for herself as a condition of continuing this action was frivolous.

Added Bonus:

For those of you caught up in a similar case, you may find the research reflected in the Appellant's winning Initial Brief on appeal helpful.

Tags: , ,

2d DCA: Is personal service of process needed to challenge a DPOA?

Posted on February 17, 2013 by Juan Antunez

Griffith v. Slade, 95 So.3d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA August 22, 2012) 

Contesting durable powers of attorney (DPOA's) is the kind of case that usually ends up on a probate litigator's desk. Probate matters are all in rem proceedings. Since in rem proceedings aren't based on personal jurisdiction, probate litigators (like me) get used to litigating cases without ever having to go through the trouble of personally serving anyone. Here's the problem: this mindset can be a trap when you run across a case that "feels" like a probate matter, but isn't. Prime example: DPOA litigation.

Is personal service of process needed to challenge a DPOA? YES.

When family members contest a DPOA's validity, it's usually a thinly-veiled inheritance dispute. This means these cases look and feel a lot like your standard probate case. They're not. One big difference: DPOA cases are NOT in rem proceedings; you need to personally serve opposing parties if you want your winning court order to mean anything. In the linked-to case above the contesting parties skipped this step, relying instead on the old probate standby: service by certified mail. This cut-to-the-chase approach may have worked with the trial judge, but it fell flat on appeal. Here's why:

[In this case], neither a summons nor other process was issued, and service of process was not accomplished. Griffith was sent a “Notice of Hearing” via certified mail. Although Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(i) provides that defendants may accept service of process by mail and waive formal service, the rule has strict requirements that were not followed here. For example, there is no evidence in the record that the “Notice of Hearing” was accompanied by the petition, requested that Griffith waive service of a summons, or informed Griffith of the consequences of compliance or failure to comply with the request to waive service. See [Shurman v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 795 So.2d 952, 954 (Fla.2001)]. Significantly, “[a] judgment entered without service of process is void and will be set aside and stricken from the record on a motion at anytime.” Myrick v. Walters, 666 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (quoting Kennedy v. Richmond, 512 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)) (alteration added).

We have also considered the possible effect of the notice requirements contained in section 709.08, Florida Statutes (2010)[FN1]. Section 709.08(5) provides in pertinent part as follows:

(a) A notice, including, but not limited to, a notice of revocation, notice of partial or complete termination by adjudication of incapacity or by the occurrence of an event referenced in the durable power of attorney, notice of death of the principal, notice of suspension by initiation of proceedings to determine incapacity or to appoint a guardian, or other notice, is not effective until written notice is served upon the attorney in fact or any third persons relying upon a durable power of attorney.

(b) Notice must be in writing and served on the person or entity to be bound by the notice. Service may be by any form of mail that requires a signed receipt or by personal delivery as provided for service of process. Service is complete when received by interested persons or entities specified in this section and in chapter 48, where applicable.

The statute does not contemplate an alternative method for service of process, but rather it addresses the notice referenced by section 709.08(4)(a), which provides: “Any third party may rely upon the authority granted in a durable power of attorney that is not conditioned on the principal's lack of capacity to manage property until the third party has received notice as provided in subsection (5).” In other words, a notice may be issued that informs the recipient that a person may no longer have authority to act pursuant to a power of attorney. However, such notice is not sufficient to bring a person within the jurisdiction of a court for legal proceedings. Indeed, nothing in the statute suggests that it may be used instead of service of process to bring a person before the court.

Although we acknowledge the circuit court's concern over the alleged behavior of Griffith, “[p]rocedural due process requires that each litigant be given proper notice and a full and fair opportunity to be heard.” Carmona v. Wal–Mart Stores, E., LP, 81 So.3d 461, 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Griffith was afforded neither.

Because service of process was never properly accomplished or waived, we reverse the order terminating Griffith's power of attorney and the order denying her motion to strike and set aside the order terminating her power of attorney. 

[FN1]: In 2011, the Florida Legislature substantially revised and renumbered Chapter 709, and repealed sections 709.01, 709.015, 709.08 and 709.11. Ch.2011–210, § 33, at 3273, Laws of Fla. (2011) [click here]. These changes became effective on October 1, 2011, and are not applicable to the case at bar. 

Tags: ,