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

Hunt v. Hooper, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 5191505 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec 12, 2008)

As I've written before, Florida is the largest recipient of state-to-state migration in the U.S. [click here]. This fact has all sorts of implications for trusts-and-estates matters. For example, figuring out where to litigate a trust dispute can be a lot harder than you'd suspect. Do you sue where the trust was executed? where the settlor died? where the settlor resided when he signed the trust agreement? where the trustee is located? where the beneficiaries are located? where the trust assets are located? Based on the particular facts of a case, reasonable minds could disagree on which, if any, of these traditional bases for jurisdiction/ venue should control.

Rather than having to figure this out on a case-by-case basis Florida's trust code provides a tie-breaker: F.S. 736.0205. Under this statute the trustee's residence usually controls: if you're suing the trustee, you have to sue him in his home state.  Sounds simple enough, but figuring out how this statute works in real life has generated a good amount of work for Florida's appellate courts [click here, here].

In the linked-to case the issue was whether F.S. 736.0205 applies where the trustee resides in a foreign country (Canada). The trial court said yes, but the 2d DCA said no:

Under the plain language of section 737.203[FN1], “the court shall not entertain proceedings under s. 737.201 for a trust registered, or having its principal place of administration, in another state.” (Emphasis added.) There is no indication in the statute that it intends its reach to be broader than its plain language suggests, and we have found no cases applying section 737.203 to trusts whose principal place of administration is a foreign country. Furthermore, we have serious concerns regarding the ability of the courts in many foreign countries to apply Florida law in construing a dispute like the one in this case.

[FN1.] The text of section 737.203, which was repealed and renumbered effective July 1, 2007, see ch.2006-217, §§ 2, 48, 49, Laws of Fla., now appears in section 736.0205, Florida Statutes (2007).

Regardless of the statutory-construction point addressed above, based on the facts of this case it clearly should be litigated in Canada. I think the 2d DCA realized this point and went out of its way to signal alternate arguments for getting this case moved to a Canadian court:

Facts:

.  .  .  [T]he Trustee was domiciled in Canada, the Father and the Trustee were married in Canada and maintained their primary residence there, the Trustee did not conduct any business in Florida, all trust administration occurred in Canada, the trust property was located in Canada, and none of the beneficiaries were located in Florida.

Law:

Because we conclude that section 737.203 is inapplicable to this case, we reverse the trial court's order dismissing the Children's action against the Trustee. We note that the Trustee raised a jurisdictional argument in her motion to dismiss that the court did not rule upon. The Trustee should not be prohibited from pursuing this argument on remand. We also note that the Trustee is not precluded from raising any objections to venue upon traditional forum non conveniens grounds on remand.

Lesson learned:

If you're working on a motion to dismiss where the facts clearly point towards litigation outside of Florida, the arguments you want to make sure you nail are:

• The trust is a foreign trust administered in another state. F.S. 736.0205
• The Florida court lacks in personam jurisdiction over the trustee.
• The Florida court lacks in rem jurisdiction over the trust's property.
• A Florida venue is improper based on traditional forum non conveniens grounds.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hernandez v. Gil, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 5156623 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec 10, 2008) [Attorney Interview]

You know you're having a bad day when the 3d DCA writes an opinion for no other reason than to lecture you on your ethical duties.

Although the arguments raised by the appellant below and here are meritless and would ordinarily prompt a per curiam affirmance, the role and actions of Hernandez's counsel warrant attention.

Ouch! The 3d DCA goes on to admonish Hernandez's counsel for going along with her client's "continued direct disobedience of unstayed court orders." And to make matters worse, the 3d DCA ordered Hernandez's counsel to pay the other side's legal fees.

Just Say No!

What this case is really about is not ethics, it's about saying "NO" to certain clients. The longer I practice law the more convinced I become that deciding which cases NOT to take is probably the single most important decision I make as a lawyer. The linked-to opinion is a prime example of how bad things can get when you take on the wrong case.

After writing about this case the last time it was appealed [click here], I was asked by a lawyer considering whether he should step in as Hernandez's new lawyer what I thought about the matter. My answer: "Run, don't walk, away from this guy." Well, it turns out the 3d DCA has similar advice for the next probate litigator sizing up a particularly difficult client:

We believe that this opinion and the monetary sanctions that will follow provide an adequate lesson on when to decline representation .  .  .   “Just say no” applies to some clients and matters, just as to drugs.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Appellate Briefs:

• Initial Brief of Appellant Nelson Julio Hernandez
• Answer Brief of Appellee Maria De Los Angeles Gil, as Personal Representative

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

When I first wrote about this case in 2006 [click here], I saw it as a prime example of public relations as litigation tool. (Check out the litigants' dueling websites: here, here). Well, fast forward two years, the Princeton suit settled on the eve of trial. Here's an excerpt from a New York Times piece entitled Princeton Settles Money Battle Over Gift reporting on the terms of the deal:

In 1961, when the A.&P. grocery heirs Charles and Marie Robertson gave Princeton a $35 million gift endowment, they directed that the money should be used to educate graduate students for careers in government.

But in a lawsuit filed in 2002, the Robertsons’ descendants claimed that Princeton was misusing the gift, which peaked at more than $900 million in June, spending it on training students for a broader range of careers. The endowment provides most of the financing for graduate programs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

The case was to go to trial in January.

Under the settlement, Princeton will pay $40 million in legal fees, and, starting in 2012, another $50 million, plus interest, to a new foundation that will support education for government service. Princeton will be able to use the remainder of the money for the Wilson school, as it chooses.

Based on these settlement figures, my sense is that Princeton settled not because it was afraid of losing at trial ($90 million is a lot of money, but it's a relatively small % of the total endowment fund), but because it wanted to finally kill this case and turn off the bad-publicity machine.

As trusts-and-estates lawyers, why should we care about all this? Because advising clients with respect to charitable giving is often a big part of our practice. And sometimes those charitable gifts go sideways on our clients. If the parties end up in litigation, understanding the unique dynamics at play in these situations can make all the difference in the world.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I previously wrote about this case from the perspective of how conflicts of interests can kill you as an estate planner if (a) you're not aware of the issues and (b) you fail to take appropriate precautions [click here]. As a follow up to that post, it seems that the estate planner at the center of this particular drama dodged the bullet (for now). Here's an excerpt from Jury rejects $17M legal malpractice claim against Orrick, written by National Law Journal staff reporter Pamela A. MacLean. 

San Francisco jury rejected a $17 million legal malpractice claim against Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe in an eight-year-old dispute claiming breach of fiduciary duty by retired trusts and estates partner William Hoisington.

"It is not often that a law firm takes a malpractice claim to trial," said Wendy Thurm, one of the Keker & Van Nest attorneys representing Orrick. "Orrick's case was strong, and we're happy Bill Hoisington's character and reputation have been preserved."

The verdict on Tuesday came following a six-week trial and two days of deliberation in Benesch v. Tandler, No. 317187 (San Francisco Co., Calif., Super. Ct.). Hoisington spent more than 30 years as a trusts and estates attorney in the San Francisco office of Orrick prior to his retirement.

An 86-year-old multimillionaire businesswoman, Fritzi Benesch, filed the suit in 2000, claiming she had been misled into relinquishing control of her clothing company, Fritzi California, to her daughter and son-in-law, Valli and Robert Tandler. Both Tandlers are lawyers and worked in the family business.

Valli worked for the former Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison firm for two years before joining the family clothing and real estate businesses. Robert worked as general counsel for Fritzi California.

In 2002, the trial court dismissed the parties from the suit on summary judgment, but the case was reinstated on appeal in 2005. The Tandlers mediated a settlement with Benesch, but Benesch abruptly backed out of the deal and the Tandlers have an appeal pending to enforce the agreement, according to Thurm.  

Lesson learned:

When you read the excerpt, note that even though the Orrick lawyer "won" this trial, the stress and financial drain of this litigation has been going on for years (and it's not over yet).  The next time you consider whether or not to take on an estate-planning matter that may involve a tricky conflicts issue ask yourself "is it really worth it?"

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Babcock v. Estate of Babcock, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4863088 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov 12, 2008)

Any probate lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you that reading a person's will is often just the tip of the iceberg. You don't really know how to administer an estate unless you take the decedent's will and run it through Florida's probate code to see what comes out the other end. The results can be surprising.

The linked-to opinion is a good example of how radically altered a will's legal effect can be once it's administered under our probate code. All of the following probate-code rules played a part in this case:

• If you get divorced and forget to revise your will, don't worry, your ex is automatically cut out of your will under F.S.732.507(2).
• If you get married and forget to revise your will to provide for your new spouse, don't worry, he or she is automatically written into your will as a "pretermitted spouse" under F.S. 732.301.
• If you die and leave your spouse nothing but your household effects and a bunch of bills, don't worry, he or she gets to keep this stuff as "exempt property" under F.S. 732.402. However, if you specifically bequest all of this stuff to someone else, then your surviving spouse is out of luck.

Here's an excerpt from the linked-to opinion that manages to weave all of these concepts into three short paragraphs:

Bradford Babcock died leaving a will which provided in Article IV the following bequest:

I devise to my wife, TARA L. BABCOCK, all of my clothing, jewelry, household goods, personal effects, automobiles and all other tangible personal property not otherwise specifically devised herein or pursuant to the written statement or list described in Article Third of this my Last Will and Testament. If my said wife shall not survive me, I devise all of the aforesaid property to my son, BRAXTON D. BABCOCK, if he shall be living at the time of my death.

At the time of his death, he was divorced from Tara and married to Tawn Babcock, from whom he was separated. Because of the divorce, those provisions affecting Tara became void. § 732.507(2), Fla. Stat. Thus, the will would be construed as a bequest to Braxton of the property contained in Article IV. Tawn was not mentioned in the will and constituted a pretermitted spouse. § 732.301, Fla. Stat.

Tawn filed a motion to determine exempt property pursuant to section 732.402(6), Florida Statutes, which provides that the surviving spouse has the right to a share of the “exempt property,” of the estate, which includes certain “[h]ousehold furniture,” “furnishings,” “appliances,” and “automobiles.” § 732.402(1), (2), Fla. Stat. However, “[p]roperty specifically or demonstratively devised by the decedent's will to any devisee shall not be included in exempt property.” § 732.402(5), Fla. Stat.

So what's a specific bequest?

As a first step all anyone had to do in this case was read the probate code, but once they ran up against the specific-bequest exception to the exempt-property statute, they got sucked into Florida's common law. Here's how the 4th DCA summarized the law on this point and how it should be applied to the specific facts of this case.

“A specific legacy is a gift by will of property which is particularly designated and which is to be satisfied only by the receipt of the particular property described.” In re Estate of Udell, 482 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See also Park Lake Presbyterian Church v. Henry's Estate, 106 So.2d 215, 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (“[A] specific legacy is a gift of a particular thing or of a specified part of the testator's estate so described as to be capable of distinguishment from all others of the same kind.”). On the other hand, “[a] general legacy or devise is one which does not direct the delivery of any particular property; is not limited to any particular asset; and may be satisfied out of the general assets belonging to the estate of testator and not otherwise disposed of in the will.” In re Estate of Udell, 482 So.2d at 460. See also Park Lake, 106 So.2d at 217.

Applying the above definitions to this case, the clothing, jewelry, and automobiles mentioned in the will are clearly specific bequests because they are particularly designated and can be satisfied only by receipt of the particular property. Stated differently, they are specific things or a specific part of the testator's estate. They are not general bequests because they cannot be satisfied out of the general assets of the testator's estate. The bequest in the instant case is similar to that in In re Estate of Gilbert, 585 So.2d 970, 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), where the Second District found that a bequest of “all of her jewelry, clothing, and feminine personalty ... was a specific bequest of identifiable property.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks