Florida Probate Litigation, Will Contest Lawyer & Attorney : Juan C. Antúnez : Serving Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa Saint Petersburg, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale

In re Commitment of Reilly, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 4270584 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec 07, 2007)

As I've written about before [click here], an adjudication of incompetency must be based upon current evidence.  Evidence that is months old by the time a judge gets around to ruling is of little value - and will probably end up getting you reversed on appeal.  In this case the defendant was adjudicated incompetent under the following criminal-procedure rule:

On March 5, 2007, counsel for Reilly and counsel for the State stipulated to the “findings and the treatment recommendations of the October 25, 2006[sic] forensic competency evaluation provided to the Court by Dr. Paul S. Kling.” This stipulation was entered pursuant to section 916.12(2), Florida Statutes (2006), which permits the trial court to adjudicate a person incompetent if the parties stipulate to a finding of incompetence by one mental health expert. Subsequently, on May 4, 2007, the trial court held a hearing at which it accepted the parties' stipulation, adjudicated Reilly incompetent, and committed him for treatment. Reilly was present at the hearing and objected to the stipulation and the finding of incompetence. Reilly now seeks review of this adjudication and commitment by petition for writ of certiorari.

6-Month Old Report = Reversal on Appeal:

For probate practitioners, the interesting point in this case is the role played by a stale, 6-month old report in the incompetency adjudication.  This report was the basis of both the trial court's ruling and the 2d DCA's reversal.

In this case, the trial court based its May 4, 2007, determination that Reilly was incompetent on a report dated October 31, 2006. However, this six-month-old report did not, and could not, speak to Reilly's present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or his present rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Accordingly, it did not provide competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that Reilly was presently incompetent to proceed. While we recognize that section 916.12(2) permits the trial court to adjudicate a defendant incompetent based on the stipulation of the parties to one mental health expert's findings, we do not believe that section 916.12(2) permits the court to rely on a stipulation to an expert's report that is so stale that it no longer speaks to the defendant's present competence.

Because Dr. Kling's report in this case was too stale to be relevant to Reilly's present competence, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in relying upon it despite the parties' stipulation. Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

Lesson learned?

When it comes to incompetency adjudications, where is the dividing line between "too stale to be relevant" and non-contemporaneous, but still valid evidence?  Who knows, but based on this case, 6 months is definitely on the WRONG side of that line.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Griem v. Becker, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 4482171 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec 26, 2007)

In the linked-to case the trial court first entered an order in favor of one side on a petition to determine heirs because the opposition failed to file a timely response.  When opposing counsel asked the court to reconsider its order, it completely reversed itself and entered an order that went way beyond simply setting aside its original ruling.  Here's how the 3d DCA framed the issue and its ruling:

Pursuant to appellee's motion, the court set aside the Original Order and issued the Order on Appeal which stated in pertinent part:

1. The Motion to Set Aside Order Determining Heirs is hereby GRANTED.

2. The Order Determining Heirs dated October 10, 2006, is hereby set aside and shall have no legal effect. INGRID DIANA GRIEM and DEBORAH GRIEM POSADA are not the beneficiaries of the Estate of Ronald Griem.

3. The marriage between the decedent, RONALD GRIEM, and ANITA BECKER is declared to be in full force and effect since its inception as recognized by the State of Florida.

(Emphasis added.)

It appears that the court endeavored to simply negate the language in the Original Order, but exceeded its intended result. However, while the circuit court attempted to set aside the prior determination as to the heirs, it confusingly stated that Griem's Daughters “are not beneficiaries.” The language used by the court in the Order on Appeal can be interpreted as making a final determination as to whether Griem's Daughters are beneficiaries of Decedent's estate. Likewise, the court specifically “declared” the marriage between the Decedent and appellee “to be in full force and effect since its inception,” despite the fact that the validity of the marriage is being contested in appellant's petition to determine heirs.

Florida Probate Rule 5.385(c) provides that following the filing of a petition to determine heirs, “[a]fter formal notice and hearing, the court shall enter an order determining the beneficiaries or the shares and amounts they are entitled to receive, or both.” Here, there is no indication in the record that a hearing was held on either the determination of heirs or on the validity of Decedent's marriage to appellee.

Accordingly, we affirm Paragraph 1 of the Order on Appeal and Paragraph 2, to the extent that it reads “[t]he Order Determining Heirs dated October 10, 2006, is hereby set aside and shall have no legal effect,” and reverse as to all remaining portions.

Lesson learned?

This case underscores the need for counsel to jealously preserve their client's due process rights in contested probate proceedings.  As I've written about before [click here, here], all too often these proceedings are determined in the absence of valid evidentiary findings or by ignoring existing procedural safeguards.  Don't let this happen to you or your clients.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

UPDATE:

This is to follow up to my blog post below regarding the case filed against The Salvation Army claiming that under Florida's POD statute [F.S. 655.82] a charity is not a "person" and therefore not a permissible POD beneficiary.  The court has granted The Salvation Army's Motion to Dismiss [click here], holding that F.S. 655.82 does not define the word person and that the context requires that the definition in F.S. 1.01(3) must be used. Therefore, a person for purposes of Florida's POD statute includes corporate charities such as The Salvation Army.

Special thanks to Miami attorney Kevin E. Packman of Holland & Knight for bringing the dismissal order to my attention.

ORIGINAL POST:

Pay on death or "POD" accountants are familiar territory to Florida probate counsel. As my partner Michele "Mickey" Maracini commented in Salvation Army Accused of Draining Dead Man's Funds by Jordana Mishory of the Daily Business Review, POD accounts are often used as probate-avoidance devices:

Attorney Michele Maracini at Stokes McMillan Maracini & Antunez of Miami, who is not involved with the case, said people frequently use this type of account. She said by leaving an account in trust for a specific person, the recipient is able to bypass the probate process.

POD Account Litigation: Florida Charities Beware!

POD accounts, like any other form of jointly-titled bank account, are not immune from disputes . . . many of which end up getting litigated in court.  I recently wrote about one such case [click here]. The two Florida statutes principally at play in these cases are 655.82 and 655.825.

Due to a quirk in the statute charities may be legally disqualified from being designated as beneficiaries of POD accounts.  That's the focus of the litigation reported on in Salvation Army Accused of Draining Dead Man's Funds:

A lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleges the Salvation Army improperly took more than $120,000 from a dead man's bank accounts -- even though the man had left $106,000 of that amount in the charity's name.

Filed by the estate of Richard Jose Belanger of West Palm Beach, Fla., the Oct. 5 lawsuit claims the Salvation Army improperly took the money left for it in Belanger's payable-on-death bank account. The suit, filed on behalf of Richard Jason Belanger, a son who is serving as personal representative, claims only a person may be left money in these types of accounts. The suit alleges the account his father left for the charity is invalid.

Family attorney John Cooney said the Florida Legislature did not intend for the 1995 statute that allows for the establishment of pay-on-death accounts to apply to entities or organizations. He drew his analysis from a portion of the statute that requires proof that the beneficiary is alive on the date of the account holder's death.

"When you have a statute that changes the way the law used to be, you need to interpret it narrowly and strictly," said Cooney, a partner at Arnstein & Lehr in Fort Lauderdale. "It doesn't matter what the decedent intended. If the decedent wanted to leave money for charity, that's why we have wills."

The lawsuit is the first legal challenge to the statute in Florida, according to the complaint. An Ohio appellate court found that a similar statute in that state allowed for only people to receive money from these types of accounts.

If Belanger's estate is successful in its case against the Salvation Army, the case could affect money left for charities across the state.

Lateral Thinking?

By the way, I think this case is yet another example of creative, lateral thinking in the probate litigation context.  Rather then challenge the Salvation Army gift on undue influence or lack-of-capacity grounds, which as litigation goes is always expensive and always full of uncertainty, plaintiff's counsel took a left turn, read the POD statute and "viola," he developed a low-cost, high probability-of-success litigation strategy where, as plaintiff's counsel states, "It doesn't matter what the decedent intended."  The case now becomes an exercise in statutory construction, which is a relatively inexpensive and quick case to litigate. Win or lose, plaintiff's counsel gets an "A" for lateral thinking.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

1. 2d DCA: In re Guardianship of Morrison, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 4180873 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov 28, 2007) (Contested Guardianship Proceeding)
2. 2d DCA: In re Commitment of Reilly, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 4270584 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec 07, 2007) (Contested Guardianship Adjudication)
3. FL SCT: Chames v. DeMayo, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 4440212 (Fla. Dec 20, 2007) (Homestead Litigation)
4. 3d DCA: Griem v. Becker, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 4482171(Fla. 3d DCA Dec 26, 2007) (Petition to Determine Heirs)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gurfinkel v. Josi, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 4322156 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec 12, 2007)

Probate litigation involving powers of attorney seem to always revolve around whether the attorney in fact acted outside the scope of authority granted by the instrument [click here, here for past examples].  This case is yet another variation on the same theme.  Here the issue was whether the attorney in fact was authorized to amend the settlor's revocable trust effectively disinheriting two of the settlor's three children.  The trial court said "yes," the 3d DCA said "no way."

Simply figuring out what to focus on in any type of litigation - including contested probate proceedings - is half the battle.  In probate litigation involving powers of attorney, focus is everything.

1.  POA v. Revocable Trust: Focus on the Trust Agreement:

If the dispute revolves around the use of a POA to amend or revoke a trust agreement, don't let yourself get sucked into a battle over whether or not the POA is valid, the product of undue influence, lack of capacity, blah, blah, blah.  Stay focused on the trust agreement!  In this case, the trial court ruled that a POA could be used to amend a trust agreement . . . even though the express language of the trust agreement said that was a definite "no-no."  Here's how the 3d DCA explained its reversal of the trial court on this point:

In this case, the Trust expressly reserves the right to amend or withdraw assets from the Trust to the grantor. Article VI, Paragraph E, further prohibits any “conservator,” “guardian,” or “any other person” from exercising these rights during the lifetime of the grantor. (Emphasis added.) The language of the reservation and prohibition in this case are very similar to those considered by the First District Court of Appeal in Mann v. Cooke, 624 So.2d 785, 786-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Although the prohibition in Mann also included an “attorney-in-fact” among those prohibited from exercising the rights of the grantor during his lifetime,[FN1] we find that to be a distinction without a difference. As in Mann, we conclude the prohibition in this case “unambiguously provides that the holder of a durable power of attorney cannot withdraw trust funds.” Id. at 787.

[FN1.] The prohibition treated in Mann reads: “Neither a conservator, attorney in fact, nor a guardian of the Grantor, nor any person other than Grantor may exercise any of the rights reserved to Grantor by the provisions of this Article.” Mann, 624 So.2d at 787 (emphasis added).

2.  ANY contested POA: Focus on F.S. 709.08:

What is often overlooked in litigation involving POAs is that under F.S. 709.08 the authority granted by a POA is very narrow.  In other words, under F.S. 709.08 an attorney is usually NOT authorized to take action (such as amending a revocable trust) unless the POA expressly says you CAN do it [click here for prior example of same point].  So if the POA is being challenged, focusing on the F.S. 709.08 makes sense.  Here's on the 3d DCA made this point in the linked-to case:

Josi argues that Paragraph 16 of the Durable Power of Attorney condones his father's attempt to amend the Trust. We disagree. Just as the power to revoke or amend a trust must be exercised in strict conformity with the terms expressed in the instrument, see MacFarlane, 203 So.2d at 60, authorizations conferred through powers of attorney likewise must strictly conform. See § 709.08(7)(b)(5), Fla. Stat. (1999) (providing that an attorney-in-fact acting under a Durable Power of Attorney may not “[c]reate, amend, modify, or revoke any document or other disposition effective at the principal's death or transfer assets to an existing trust created by the principal unless expressly authorized by the power of attorney ....”) (emphasis added); James v. James, 843 So.2d 304, 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“In general, an agent cannot make gifts of his principal's property to himself or others unless it is expressly authorized in the power .”) (emphasis added); Vaughn v. Batchelder, 633 So.2d 526, 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Kotsch v. Kotsch, 608 So.2d 879, 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); De Bueno v. Alejandro Bueno Castro, A.B.P., Inc., 543 So.2d 393, 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Bloom v. Weiser, 348 So.2d 651, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“[T]he instrument will be held to grant only those powers which are specified.”).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston v. Miller, 2007 WL 4233547 (S.D.Fla. Nov 29, 2007)

This case is helpful because it provides an example of a power-of-attorney (POA) that authorized the attorney in fact to change the named beneficiary of an insurance policy.  All of the Florida cases I've written about lately involved POAs being used to take action NOT authorized by the instrument [click here, here, here, here].

So what does the POA have to say to authorize the attorney in fact to change an insurance policy beneficiary designation form?  Glad you asked.  Here's your answer:

Construction of a durable power of attorney is a matter of law. Spoerr v. Manhattan Natl. Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 128815 (S.D.Fla.2007). In construing a power of attorney the court must look at the language of the instrument in order to ascertain its object and purpose. Id. However, power of attorneys are strictly construed. Id. And, only the principal's intent is considered when construing the power of attorney, not the agent's intent. Kotsch v. Kotsch, 608 So.2d 879 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.1992).

First, the Decedent intended to give broad powers to Mrs. Miller as his attorney-in-fact. Under paragraph 4 of the power of attorney, labeled “No Limitation on Attorney-In-Fact's Powers,” the Decedent states that he “intend [s] to give [his] Attorney-in-Fact the fullest powers possible, including all powers set forth in Florida Statute Section 709.08 as now in effect or hereafter enacted, and [he] [does] not intend, by the enumeration of [his] Attorney-in-Fact's powers to limit or reduce them in any fashion.” (Durable Power of Att'y ¶ 4.) Here, the Decedent expressed his desire to relay to Mrs. Miller all the powers that he could possibly give her. ( Id.)

The Decedent specifically states that he intends to give her the full extent of powers under available pursuant to 709.08. ( Id.) Among the powers available pursuant to 709.08, is the power to “amend or modify any document or other disposition effective at the principal's death.” § 709.08(7)(a). This power is only available if the decedent expressly authorized his attorney in fact, Mrs. Miller, to use that power. See § 709.08(7)(a). Therefore, the powers are available because he expressly states that he intends to give Mrs. Miller the full powers available under 709.08, (Durable Power of Att'y ¶ 4.), and the power to change beneficiaries under his insurance policy is one of the powers available under 709.08. § 709.08(7)(a).

Furthermore, under the section entitled “Management and Contracting Powers,” the Decedent expressly authorizes Mrs. Miller to alter, insure, and in any manner deal with any real or personal property tangible or intangible and any interest therein. (Durable Power of Att'y ¶ E.) He further authorized Mrs. Miller under this same section to improve, manage and insure intangible property that he owns “upon such terms and conditions as the Attorney in Fact shall deem proper.” ( Id.) And, under section P, “Special,” the Decedent declares that he gives his attorney in fact the full power of substitution, in other words, the full power to do and perform every act necessary and convenient to be done as if he were still personally present. (Durable Power of Att'y ¶ P.)

The Decedent clearly intended to give his attorney-in-fact, Mrs. Miller, the full extent of the powers that he could give her. The Decedent granted Mrs. Miller the “fullest powers possible” pursuant to Florida Statute Section 709.08, which he did not intend to limit by enumerating further power. Therefore, his intent was clear, and strictly construing this contract, we must conclude that the Decedent intended to authorize Mrs. Miller to be able to change the named beneficiary on the insurance policy. Because there is no genuine issue of material fact and the law indicates that Mrs. Miller was authorized to change the named beneficiary on the Decedent's insurance policy, summary judgment shall be granted in favor of Mrs. Miller and the Estate of the Decedent is entitled to the proceeds of the Decedent's insurance policy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is a follow-up to a case I previously wrote about here.  The focus of my prior blog post was whether the attorney who drafted the contested will, Alan Watson, had violated Florida Bar Ethics Rule 4-1.8(c), which prohibits an attorney from preparing a will giving the attorney or a person "related" to the attorney any substantial gift from a client unless the client is related to the proposed donee.  Watson drafted a will that disinherited the decedent's children in favor of Watson's niece and her boyfriend.  Based on a strict reading of Rule 4-1.8(c) my conclusion was that Watson's niece did not fall within the definition of "related person" for purposes of the rule and thus there was no violation; the Florida Bar seems to have agreed with my conclusion (reluctantly I'm sure).

Florida Supreme Court Ethics Ruling:

As documented in the Referee's Report [click here] and the corresponding Florida Supreme Court Order [click here], although Watson was NOT found guilty of violating Rule 4-1.8(c), he did eventually plead guilty to other ethics violations arising out of his involvement with the decedent and was suspended from the practice of law for fifteen days.  After reading the Referee's Report my impression of the case is that the facts smelled sooo bad to the Florida Bar's investigators that they were determined to nail Watson for something . . . and succeeded.

Lesson learned: Play with fire and you're going to get burned.

Whether the product of negligence, malfeasance, good intentions or some combination of all of the above, any attorney who puts himself in the position that Watson did in this case is looking for trouble.  If you dabble in estate planning/probate, this case is a warning to be careful.  When that little voice in your head tells you that maybe something isn't right - STOP and listen to it!  If estate planning/probate is your niche, this case is a good example of what NOT to do when an elderly client with a substantial estate asks you to draft to a will that is bound to be challenged in the future.  Forewarned is forearmed.

Special thanks to Tampa attorney and frequent contributor to this blog, Russell R. Winer, for bringing the suspension order to my attention.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Florida Bar ethics rules governing contingent fee agreements are found in Rule 4-1.5(f).  Other than in divorce and criminal-defense cases [Rule 4-1.5(f)(3)], contingent fees are acceptable in any form of litigation, including contested probate proceedings.  Another point to keep in mind is that the percentage ceilings applicable to personal injury and medical malpractice cases, do NOT apply to probate cases [Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)].  In my experience, a straight 40% seems to be the norm for non-PI contingent fee agreements.

There's not a lot of Florida case law out there addressing contingent fees in probate cases.  The one Florida appellate opinion addressing this specific issue I am aware of is Brooks v. Degler, 712 So.2d 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).  In Brooks the 5th DCA reversed a trial-court order enforcing a contingent fee in a contested probate matter because the contingent-fee agreement was poorly drafted, NOT because contingent fee arrangements are per se invalid.  Brooks provides solid guidance on how NOT to draft a contingent fee agreement for a probate case.

Late 40 Percent Retainer Pact Survives Widow's Dismissal Bid: Lawyers Seek $42 Million Fee

A recent NY Law Journal article entitled Late 40 Percent Retainer Pact Survives Widow's Dismissal Bid, reports on a NY case in which a 40% contingency in a contested probate matter resulting in a $42 million payday for the lawyers was challenged as being "unconscionable on its face."  The WSJ Law Blog also reported on this case here [the comments to the WSJ blog post are a fun read].  For a more colorful take on the case the NY Post delivers - as always - with: WAR OVER $40 MIL LEGAL BILL.

I previously wrote about this case here.

The NY appellate opinion in this case is worth noting by Florida probate litigators.  If someone ever tries to get out of your probate/contingency fee agreement, the arguments played out in this NY case just may surface in yours.  The following excerpt from the linked-to NY Law Journal article should give you a sense of the operative facts and law at play in this case:

A 40 percent contingent-fee agreement between New York law firm Graubard Miller and Alice Lawrence, the 83-year-old widow of real estate developer Sylvan Lawrence, was not unconscionable on its face, an appellate court said Tuesday, even though the agreement was executed in the final months of a decades-long estate litigation in which the firm had already received $18 million in hourly fees and three partners had further requested and received $5 million in "gifts."

In Lawrence v. Graubard Miller et al., a 4-1 majority of the New York Appellate Division, 1st Department denied Ms. Lawrence's motion to dismiss Graubard Miller's petition to compel payment of the contingent fee and said further proceedings would be needed to determine the propriety of the arrangement.

"[W]hile at first blush such agreement might arguably seem excessive and invite skepticism, before any determination regarding unconscionability can be made, the circumstances underlying the agreement must be fully developed, including any discussions leading to the agreement, as well as the prospects at that time of successfully concluding the litigation in favor of Mrs. Lawrence," Justice Richard T. Andrias wrote for a majority that included Justices David Friedman, George D. Marlow and Eugene Nardelli.

But in a blistering dissent, Justice James M. Catterson said he would not only have found the fee agreement invalid on its face but would also have referred the Graubard Miller lawyers to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee.

"Regardless of the procedural aspects of the parties' negotiations, no court can condone such an exorbitant fee," Catterson wrote.

Ms. Lawrence first retained the law firm, then known as Graubard Moskovitz McGoldrick Dannett & Horowitz in 1983, to represent her in a suit against Seymour Cohn, her late husband's brother, business partner and executor.

At the time of Mr. Lawrence's death in 1981, the brothers held a 12-million-square-foot real estate portfolio that included the former Port Authority building at 111 Eighth Ave. and a number of Wall Street office towers. It was estimated to be worth over $1 billion. Ms. Lawrence, who inherited 75 percent of her husband's interest, sought the portfolio's sale, but Cohn, who died in 2003, long opposed her.

Over the next 20 years, some $350 million was distributed from the estate, but the litigation dragged on until a final settlement was reached in May 2005 by which Cohn's estate would pay Ms. Lawrence and her children $105 million. Graubard Miller is seeking 40 percent of this amount, or around $42 million. Ms. Lawrence has sought rescission of the agreement as well as the return of all previous fees on the grounds of unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty.

Though contingent fees of such magnitude are not uncommon in personal injury cases, they are rarer in estate cases. Moreover, such deals normally date from the beginning of the litigation and are in lieu of hourly fees, meaning a law firm bringing a case on a contingent-fee basis normally faces a risk of nonrecovery.

But Graubard Miller's contingent-fee deal was signed in January 2005, only months before the settlement. The 1983 retainer agreement in effect prior to that only specified hourly billing. In his dissent, Justice Catterson said the contingent fee might have been reasonable if agreed upon at the beginning of the case or if the firm had agreed to refund its previous fees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Graham v. Florida Dept. of Children and Families, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 4245627 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec 05, 2007)

The linked-to case is the second appellate decision involving a family feud between two brothers, "Luke" and "Larry" Graham, both of which were vying to be appointed their mother's guardian with authority over her $850,000+ in assets.  When I first wrote about this case [click here], brother-Larry seemed to be on the losing end of this litigation. After Larry initially lost his bid to be appointed guardian, he apparently took matters into his own hands.  Here's how the 4th DCA summed up the operative facts at that time:

After the trial court appointed the guardian, Larry surreptitiously took Betty from the residence where she had been placed by the guardian and moved her to California without giving notice to the court or any of the parties. The trial court held Larry in indirect criminal contempt for removing Betty from Florida and otherwise defying the guardianship orders. Larry has refused to reveal his exact whereabouts as well as the whereabouts of his mother.

Based on these facts, in the last opinion the 4th DCA hammered Larry.

Fatally flawed procedural/evidentiary record leads to stunning reversal of all trial-court wins:

The most important person in any contested guardianship proceeding is the judge.  He is both law giver and fact finder.  Convincing the trial judge of the justness of your cause is a precondition to winning this type of case, but it's not enough.  To protect your trial-court wins you need to make sure you've built a procedural and evidentiary record that can survive appellate challenge - even if your trial judge is wiling to give you a pass on these issues.  On the flip side, if you've lost at the trial-court level, every procedural and evidentiary mistake made by the other side is an opportunity to be exploited on appeal.

The following appellate rulings from the linked-to opinion - all of which combined together to give brother-Larry a stunning victory on appeal - demonstrate how a fatally flawed procedural and evidentiary record can undo even the most sweeping trail-court wins.

1.  Improper service leads to reversal of criminal contempt order:

When Larry took his mother from Florida to California in defiance of the trial court's orders, you know the judge must have been fuming. This judge was almost guaranteed to find Larry in contempt.  All the moving side had to do was make sure it complied with the minimum procedural and evidentiary requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, governing indirect criminal contempt, and the judge would do the rest.  This wasn't done, leading to the following appellate victory for Larry.

Failure to strictly follow the dictates of Rule 3.840, governing indirect criminal contempt, constitutes fundamental, reversible error. Hagan v. State, 853 So.2d 595, 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

Laurence Graham argues that the trial court's order is based upon a statement from Catholic Charities, which is not in affidavit form and was not issued upon personal knowledge, that he did not receive notice of the contempt proceedings, and that he was not properly served.

We reject without comment Laurence's arguments concerning an insufficient affidavit and lack of notice, but agree with his contention that he was not properly served.

It is undisputed here that Laurence was not personally served with the order to show cause and thus, reversal is warranted. See Van Hare v. Van Hare, 870 So.2d 125, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing order of criminal contempt for lack of compliance with Rule 3.840).

2.  Guardianship appointment effectively revoked ward's advanced health care directive without necessary proof, notice and hearing.

Rather than challenge the order appointing his brother as guardian directly, Larry focused instead on the fact that he was the named surrogate under an advanced health care directive executed by his mother. The evidentiary and procedural record was fatally flawed with respect to revoking an advanced health care directive, resulting in a reversal - on procedural grounds - of the order appointing Larry's brother as guardian.

Laurence Graham contends next that, in appointing Luke Graham as Betty's temporary plenary guardian, the trial court effectively revoked Betty's valid Directive, and did so without the necessary proof under section 765.105, Florida Statutes (2007), and without notice and a hearing, in violation of section 744.3115, Florida Statutes (2007). We agree in part.

*     *     *     *     *
In appointing Luke Graham as Betty's temporary plenary guardian, an act which effectively revoked her Directive, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of section 744.3115. The court failed to determine whether the Directive was valid before appointing a guardian.

*     *     *     *     *
Therefore, we reverse and remand on this issue for a determination by the trial court of whether Betty's Directive is valid, and if so, what grounds under section 765.105 require its revocation.

3.  Flawed evidentiary record leads to dismissal of entire guardianship proceeding

Larry's biggest win on appeal was the ruling by the 4th DCA reversing the trial court's incapacity finding and remanding the case "with directions to dismiss the guardianship proceeding."  What could have lead to such a drastic change of fortune for Larry?  Evidence, plain and simple.  The evidence relied upon by the winning side at the trial-court level was outdated by the time of the incapacity hearing, and Larry's trial counsel did a good job of building a record for a successful appeal by introducing rock solid evidence countering the incapacity finding.  Here's how the 4th DCA summarized this final leg of the case:

After finding Laurence in contempt, the trial court found that Betty's incapacity was established and appointed Luke Graham as her temporary plenary guardian. Laurence claims the trial court erred in doing so without sufficient evidence of Betty's incapacity pursuant to section 744.331, Florida Statutes. We agree.

A trial court's ruling on mental capacity cannot be disturbed “unless the evidence shows it is clearly erroneous.” Fleming v. Fleming, 352 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (citing Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. 97 (1891)). “In the adjudicatory hearing on a petition alleging incapacity, the partial or total incapacity of the person must be established by clear and convincing evidence.” § 744.331(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007). Further, section 744.331(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), states:

Upon appointment of the examining committee, the court shall set the date upon which the petition will be heard. The date for the adjudicatory hearing must be set no more than 14 days after the filing of the reports of the examining committee members, unless good cause is shown. The adjudicatory hearing must be conducted at the time and place specified in the notice of hearing and in a manner consistent with due process.

Laurence Graham relies on LeWinter v. Guardianship of LeWinter, 606 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), which is analogous to the instant case. In LeWinter, the Second District reversed a finding of incapacity and the appointment of a guardian, concluding that there was no competent evidence to support the order. The court found that although the report of the examining committee established under section 744.331(3)(a) contained findings that the ward lacked the capacity to perform the functions that served the basis for the guardianship, it was filed over six weeks before the hearing, and there was evidence that the ward's condition had improved in the meantime. LeWinter, 606 So.2d at 388.

Similarly, in the instant case, two of the three examining committee reports were filed two months or more before the hearing. The hearing took place on February 8, 2007. One report was filed on November 21, 2006, and another on December 8, 2006. Further, Laurence Graham submitted a sworn affidavit dated January 20, 2007, from Dr. Clyde Rouse Jr., who was Betty's previous psychiatrist for 2 years, and again evaluated her in January 2007, stating that Betty's condition had improved. Dr. Rouse claimed, inter alia: “She looks very well and shows no evidence of any psychiatric symptoms. She reviewed her health care advance directive with me and verbally acknowledged that she had named her son Larry as her surrogate in that document.” He also stated that her condition improved due to medication and in his opinion she “is perfectly competent to make financial decisions, to execute any legal documents such as power of attorney, health care advance directives, etc.” Notably, a report by Dr. David Trader, board certified in general psychiatry and geriatric psychiatry, dated February 14, 2007, a few days after the hearing in question, indicated that “[t]he present examination suggests that Betty Graham has sufficient mental capacity to make financial, medical, testamentary and general personal decisions at this time.”

Because Dr. Rouse's report indicated an improvement in Betty's condition and the committee member reports were filed two months prior to the hearing, the record evidence failed to establish Betty's incapacity by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, we reverse and remand with directions to dismiss the guardianship proceeding. See LeWinter, 606 So.2d at 388.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A NY Times article entitled A Lurid Aftermath to a Hedge Fund Manager’s Life reports on a brewing dispute over a Jupiter, FL estate reportedly "worth at least $25 million."  The following excerpts from the linked-to article give us a sense of what kind of case this will be (ugly!) and where the battle lines are being drawn:

JUPITER, Fla. — A life of private jets and black-tie balls ended with Seth Tobias, a wealthy investment manager and a familiar presence on CNBC, floating face down in the swimming pool of his mansion here.

*     *     *     *     *

Mr. Tobias, who was 44 years old, had apparently suffered a heart attack, his brother Spence said at the time. The police did not consider his death suspicious.

But now an unfolding drama over Mr. Tobias’s estate is providing a lurid account of fast money and faster living in the volatile world of hedge funds. Mr. Tobias’s four brothers and Mrs. Tobias are locked in a legal battle over the estate, which is worth at least $25 million. And, in a civil complaint, they have gone so far as to accuse her of murder.

The brothers, Samuel, Spence, Scott and Joshua, claim Mrs. Tobias drugged her husband and lured him into the pool. Bill Ash, a former assistant to Mr. Tobias, said he had told the police that Mrs. Tobias confessed to him that she had cajoled her husband into the water while he was on a cocaine binge with a promise of sex with a male go-go dancer known as Tiger.

*     *     *     *     *
At the center of the dispute is Mr. Tobias’s will, which designates his brothers as beneficiaries but does not name Mrs. Tobias. She contends that she is entitled to the estate because the will was signed before the couple married. In court filings, the Tobias brothers invoke Florida’s “slayer statute,” which prohibits inheritance by a person who murders someone from whom they stand to inherit. They claim she “intentionally killed” her husband “by asphyxiation and drowning.”

Florida's "pretermitted spouse" statute:

Mrs. Tobias' argument is based on Florida's version of the pretermitted spouse rule.  Here's how that argument is played out:

Mr. Tobias married Mrs. Tobias after making his will.  As such, pursuant to F.S. §732.301, regardless of what the will says, Mrs. Tobias is entitled receive a share of his $25+ million estate equal in value to that which she would have received if Mr. Tobias had died intestate, unless 1) provision has been made for, or waived by, Mrs. Tobias by a nuptial agreement; 2) Mrs. Tobias is otherwise provided for in the will (she apparently is not); or 3) the will discloses an intention not to make provision for Mrs. Tobias.

Pursuant to F.S. §732.102, the intestate share to which Mrs. Tobias would be entitled is as follows: a) If there are no living lineal descendants of Mr. Tobias, she gets the entire intestate estate; b) if there are surviving lineal descendants of Mr. Tobias, all of whom are also Mrs. Tobias' lineal descendants, she gets  the first $60,000 of the intestate estate, plus one-half of the balance of the intestate estate; and c) if there are surviving lineal descendants of Mr. Tobias, one or more of whom are not lineal descendants of Mrs. Tobias, she gets one-half of the intestate estate.

Florida's "slayer" statute:

Mr. Tobias' surviving brothers argue that Mrs. Tobias murdered her husband, and thus she shouldn't get a penny of the estate under Florida's version of the "slayer" rule, a doctrine I've written about before [see here, here, here]. 

Florida’s slayer statutes are found at F.S. § 732.802 (probate estates) and F.S. § 736.1104 (trust estates).

Although a murder conviction would make things easier for the Tobias brothers, it's not a pre-condition to their lawsuit. If Mrs. Tobias were convicted of the murder, that would conclusively divest her of all of her interest in Mr. Tobias' estate; but if Mrs. Tobias were acquitted of the murder (or never charged), the probate court could still weigh the evidence and determine "by the greater weight of the evidence" whether or not she should be divested. Here is the key language from F.S. § 732.802:

(1) A surviving person who unlawfully and intentionally kills or participates in procuring the death of the decedent is not entitled to any benefits under the will or under the Florida Probate Code, and the estate of the decedent passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent.

*     *     *     *     *

(5) A final judgment of conviction of murder in any degree is conclusive for purposes of this section. In the absence of a conviction of murder in any degree, the court may determine by the greater weight of the evidence whether the killing was unlawful and intentional for purposes of this section.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (2)

Clients are often surprised to learn that, for the most part, inherited assets are received income tax free. In addition to being income tax free, the appreciation on capital assets received from a decedent is also forgiven. The tax mechanism that allows for the forgiveness of the appreciation is known as a “step-up” in basis. A step-up in basis allows the beneficiary to sell an asset received from a decedent income tax free.

Income in Respect of a Decedent (“IRD”)

The primary exception to the general step-up-in-basis rule is income in respect of a decedent (“IRD”). Common examples of IRD include pension, IRA and 401(k) distributions, certain annuity payments and the decedent’s final paycheck.  For a detailed explanation of IRD from a CPA's perspective, see Maximizing the Tax Deduction for Income in Respect of a Decedent.

IRD can also include post-death sales of the decedent's property if the sales contract was finalized prior to death.  This can be a very big deal.

For example,  assume Dad owned real property with a basis of $1,000 and a fair market value of $1,000,000 on the day he died.  Usually, this property would receive a step-up in basis to its date-of-death value.  So Son would inherit the property with a basis of $1,000,000.  If Son sells the property 1 day after Dad dies, he pays zero income tax on the sale.  However, if the real property was subject to a pre-death sales contract, and the sale closes 1 day after Dad dies, the gain would be considered IRD and Dad's estate would have to pay income tax on $999,000 in gain.  Assuming a 15% tax rate, the tax bite would be $149,850!

IRS Rules Gain from Post-Death Sale of Decedent's Real Property under Pre-Death Contract Wasn't IRD: "Economically material contingencies might have disrupted the sale prior to Decedent's death." 

Obviously, spotting IRD issues in a probate proceeding and knowing how to best manage them can save your client big bucks; and turn your average probate lawyer into the family hero.  In Private Letter Ruling 200744001, the IRS provides an excellent road map for understanding what IRD is and, most importantly, how to avoid paying income taxes on IRD if the pre-death contract is subject to "economically material contingencies that might have disrupted the sale prior to Decedent's death."  Remember that phrase, it's the key to everything that's going on in this private letter ruling.

IRS Private Letter Ruling 200744001:

Facts:

The information submitted states that Taxpayer, Decedent’s revocable trust, entered into a contract to sell a plot of real property on D1, with an intended closing date of D2. Before D2, however, a gas pipeline was discovered underneath the property, causing the parties to delay the sale until Taxpayer, the buyer and the pipeline’s operating company could resolve a number of issues. The parties needed to address matters such as providing for an easement for the pipeline company to enter onto the property as well as providing that the pipeline company would provide restitution for any damage to the property. Before the parties could resolve these issues, Decedent died on D3. The sale did not actually close until D4.

Law:

Section 691(a)(1) provides that the amount of all items of gross income in respect of a decedent (IRD) which are not properly includible in respect of the taxable period in which falls the date of the decedent's death or a prior period (including the amount of all items of gross income in respect of a prior decedent, if the right to receive such amount was acquired by reason of the death of the prior decedent or by bequest, devise, or inheritance from the prior decedent) shall be included in the gross income, for the taxable year when received, of: (A) the estate of the decedent, if the right to receive the amount is acquired by the decedent's es tate from the decedent; (B) the person who, by reason of the death of the decedent, acquires the right to receive the amount, if the right to receive the amount is not acquired by the decedent's estate from the decedent; or (C) the person who acquires from the dec edent the right to receive the amount by bequest, devise, or inheritance, if the amount is received after a distribution by the decedent's estate of such right.

Section 1.691(a)-1(b) of the Income Tax Regulations provides that the term “income in respect of decedent” refers to those amounts to which a decedent was entitled as gross income but which were not properly includible in computing the decedent's taxable income for the taxable year ending with the date of the decedent's death or for a previous taxable year under the method of accounting employed by the decedent. Thus, the term includes income to which the decedent had a contingent claim at the time of the decedent's death.

Section 1014(a) provides that the basis of property in the hands of a person acquiring the property from a decedent or to whom the property passed from a decedent shall, if not sold, exchanged, or ot herwise disposed of before the decedent's death by such person, be the fair market value of the property at the date of the decedent's death.

Section 1014(b)(1) provides, in part, that for purposes of section 1014(a), property acquired by bequest, devise or inherit ance, or by the decedent's estate from the decedent shall be considered to have been acquired from or to have passed from the decedent.

In Rev. Rul. 78-32, 1978-1 C.B. 198, prior to death, a decedent had entered into a binding contract to sell real estate, had substantially completed all of the substantive prerequisites of consummation of the sale, and was unconditionally entitled to the proceeds of the sale at the time of death. The ruling holds that the gain realized from the sale of the real estate that was completed by the decedent's executor is income in respect of a decedent within the meaning of § 691(a).

In Taxpayer's case, important issues needed to be addressed before the sale of the property could be closed. The closing was delayed until D4 because of these issues. Taxpayer needed to attend to substantive as well as ministerial matters. The pipeline was not discovered until after the original contract was entered into; this created economically material contingencies that might have disrupted the sale prior to Decedent's death.

Ruling:

Based solely on the facts and representations submitted, we conclude that any gain realized from the sale of the property after Decedent's death does not constitute income in respect of a decedent within the meaning of § 691. We further conclude that basis of the property in Taxpayer's hands before the sale should be determined under § 1014(a).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks