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

Glantz and Glantz, P.A. v. Chinchilla, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 1531644 (Fla. 4th DCA June 3, 2009)

An appellate court won't reverse a probate judge's ruling cutting attorneys fees unless there's been an "abuse of discretion." In other words, if reasonable minds could disagree on how the court should have ruled, then the appellate court must affirm the trial court's ruling . . . even if the appellate judges would have come to a different conclusion. Here's how the Florida Supreme Court put it in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980): "the appellate court must fully recognize the superior vantage point of the trial judge . . . . If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.”

So it's a rare case indeed when an appellate court comes across a set of facts that compels it to step in and reverse a fee ruling that is so patently unfair it simply can't be left alone. This is one of those cases. Here are the facts:

The personal representative of an estate was a member of prepaid legal services program. The program referred her to the law firm of Glantz & Glantz, P.A., where the personal representative retained Mark Mastrarrigo to handle estate matters.

Subsequently, the personal representative wrote a letter to the court expressing her concern about the law firm's billing, prompting the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Testimony revealed that the attorney documented 123 billable hours defending a will contest, filing and pursuing a motion to disqualify another attorney based on a conflict of interest, and working with a curator in connection with the sale of the estate's property.

Pursuant to the prepaid legal services program, the attorney charged $115 per hour, a 51% discounted rate from the normal billing rate of $225 per hour. The total charges amounted to $12,400 plus costs. The law firm submitted an affidavit from an expert attesting to the reasonableness of the fees and costs, specifically that $13,500 was a reasonable fee for the services rendered. Testimony evidenced that this amount was based on the discounted hourly rate and not on the normal billing rate.

The court entered an order awarding the law firm fees in the amount of $6,885, 51% of the $13,500 reasonable fee attested to by the expert. The court denied the law firm's motion for rehearing, from which the law firm now appeals.

The 4th DCA went on to explain the legal basis for its reversal as follows:

Here, the prepaid legal services contract rate of $115 per hour is presumed to be reasonable. See, e.g., Sotolongo v. Brake, 616 So.2d 413, 413-14 (Fla.1992). The 123 hours expended is also reasonable given that the attorney testified to the services rendered by the law firm in representing the personal representative in a will contest, a motion to disqualify another lawyer, and work done with the curator. The trial court accepted the expert's affidavit that $13,500 was a reasonable, already discounted fee. The trial court did not find the hours or the discounted rate to be unreasonable. Nevertheless, the trial court inexplicably reduced the reasonable fee by another 51%. In doing so, it abused its discretion.

The exception that proves the rule.

The fact that the probate attorney won this fee dispute shouldn't embolden anyone; it's an exceptional case that only proves your fees have to be ridiculously low to begin with to have a prayer of winning on appeal. Not a good strategy for staying in business for very long. The better lesson to be drawn from this case is that fee disputes are no-win situations. And the best way to win that battle is to take the time up front to make sure your client doesn't object to your fees once you've done all the work. Billing is part science, part art. For an excellent article discussing how to get this right in the trusts and estates context, read Understanding the Legal and Emotional Aspects to Billing and Collecting for Legal Services [click here for slide show] by frequent lecturer and Chicago estate planning attorney Louis Harrison.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Geary v. Butzel Long, P.C., --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 1606034 (Fla. 4th DCA Jun 10, 2009)

In the commercial litigation context F.S. § 57.105 is a powerful tool for curbing abusive litigation tactics: if you engage in bad faith or frivolous litigation, not only will you eventually lose, you’ll also end up paying the other side’s legal fees. This is a commonly-used device that everyone knows about and has been the subject of multiple Florida Bar Journal articles [click here, here, here, here]. F.S. § 57.105 also occasionally pops up in the probate-litigation context [click here].

What’s often overlooked is that Florida’s probate code provides a similar remedy that’s just as powerful, but doesn’t require you to jump through any of the procedural hoops built into F.S. § 57.105. In both F.S. § 733.106(4) and F.S. § 733.6175(2), a probate judge is given the express statutory authority to determine from whose share of the estate attorneys fees incurred in frivolous or bad faith litigation will be paid. You might want to go this route in lieu of a personal judgmenet for fees against a bad actor under F.S. § 57.105 because you don't have to worry about collecting on your judgement: the probate-code route allows you to simply go after assets already available and subject to the court's authority as part of the probate estate.

Here's how the 4th DCA explained the law on when a probate judge can shift the winning side's attorney's fees against one of the estate's beneficiaries for frivolousness:

In In re Estate of Lane, 562 So.2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), we examined the propriety of a probate court's order assessing attorney's fees from a will contest proportionally against the specific beneficiaries as well as the residuary estate. We noted that section 733.106(4), Florida Statutes, permits the court to direct from what part of an estate a fee assessment shall be paid (just as section 733.6175(2) does). However, we explained:

This section does not give the trial court unbridled discretion to award fees from any part of the estate. Before the trial court may assesses fees against a beneficiary's share of an estate there must be a finding of bad faith or wrongdoing by the beneficiary or other circumstances which would warrant such an assessment.

Id. at 353. Despite our use of “bad faith and wrongdoing,” we relied on and agreed with Cohen v. Schwartz, 538 So.2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), in which the court suggested that in trying to close a prolonged estate, the trial court could assess attorney's fees against a beneficiary's portion of the estate for frivolous litigation consistent with section 733.106(4). We agree that if the litigation pursued is frivolous, then the court would have the authority under that section to assess fees against a specific beneficiary's portion of the estate.

The trial court found that the fees incurred in pursuing the fees on fees litigation constituted essentially frivolous litigation and were unreasonably incurred. Therefore, it acted within its discretion to apportion the fees for that litigation to Geary. However, the court did not make a finding that the personal representative engaged in frivolous litigation in its initial defense to Butzel Long's motion for fees and seeking disgorgement of fees paid. To the contrary, it noted that that defense may have been justified. It found only that the fees on fees litigation, which pushed the fees and costs awarded to Butzel Long from $19,000 to $49,000 (and subsequently even more), was unreasonable and unnecessary. Therefore, while the court could properly assess the fees on fees litigation against Geary, it should not have imposed the initial $19,000 for the fees litigation on Geary's share of the estate without a finding of wrongful conduct, bad faith, or frivolousness.

Lesson learned? Think 57.105 motion.

First, if you look over the Florida Bar Journal articles explaining F.S. § 57.105 you’ll see that the standard for determining what constitutes “frivolous” litigation in that context is identical to the frivolity standard applied under F.S. § 733.106(4) and F.S. § F.S. 733.6175(2).

Second, a probate judge can’t shift fees for frivolous litigation unless its order contains specific findings of fact establishing “wrongful conduct, bad faith, or frivolousness.” Again, this “specific findings” requirement is identical to that required under F.S. § 57.105.

Bottom line, given that there are very few appellate-court decisions discussing when and how to apply F.S. § 733.106(4) and F.S. § F.S. 733.6175(2) to curb wrongful conduct, bad faith, or frivolousness in the probate-litigation context, looking to cases discussing F.S. § 57.105 makes sense; also, “framing” the issue for your probate judge as being analogous to a “57.105 motion” is probably the best short-hand way of making clear to your judge exactly what kind of remedy you’re looking for and why. Your judge may not be all that familiar with the ins and outs of fee-shifting under F.S. § 733.106(4) and F.S. § F.S. 733.6175(2), but he or she will almost certainly know exactly what you’re talking about the moment you say, “judge, this is like a 57.105 motion.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Herrilka v. Yates, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 1531772 (Fla. 4th DCA June 03, 2009)

Homestead property is something probate lawyers deal with in almost every estate-administration  proceeding, but it's NOT a probate asset. This disconnect is a source of never-ending client consternation and attorney heartburn. The linked-to case is a prime example.

In this hotly-contested estate the court appointed a curator and this curator set about doing what curators do. Apparently there wasn't enough cash in the estate to pay for this work, so the curator asked the judge (who had appointed her) to please put a lien on what may have been the decedent's single most valuable asset - his homestead property - to pay her fees. The court obliged her . . .  and was reversed on appeal.

The probate court's order was reversed for two reasons: [1] the decedent's alleged spouse occupied the house at all times - so the curator never actually took possession of the property (strike one); and [2] the curator's work related to general estate-administration matters - not preserving the homestead property (strike two). The statute governing this dispute is F.S. 733.608, and the 4th DCA does an excellent job of explaining it:

The trial court's decision to impose the lien pursuant to section 733.608 was improper because, in accordance with the plain meaning of the statute, Yates failed to meet its requirements. This is because: (1) Yates has not, and cannot, take possession of the property, as it is occupied by an “interested person;” and (2) the fees incurred by Yates for which the lien was imposed were not incurred for the purpose of preserving, maintaining, insuring, or protecting the homestead property.

With respect to section 733.608, subsection (3) allows for imposition of a lien on “property referenced in subsection (2).” § 733.608(3). The property referenced in subsection (2) is “protected homestead” that “is not occupied by a person who appears to have an interest in the property” which the personal representative has “take[n] possession of ... for the limited purpose of preserving, insuring, and protecting it for the person having an interest in the property.” Id. § 733.608(2). For purposes of probate litigation, the Florida Legislature has defined an “interested person” as “any person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the particular proceeding involved.” Id. § 731.201(23). In order to impose a lien, section 733.608(3) also requires that the “expenditures and obligations incurred,” which include “fees and costs,” for which the lien is imposed were incurred for the purpose of “preserv[ing], maintain[ing], insur[ing], or protect[ing]” the homestead property.

In this case, the trial court erred in imposing the lien because the homestead property was never taken into possession, either legally or factually, by Yates, as Constance still occupies it. This failure to take possession negates a claim for the imposition of the lien because, to do so, section 733.608 first requires that the personal representative take possession of the property “for the limited purpose of preserving, insuring, and protecting it.” § 733.608(2). Furthermore, Yates cannot legally take possession of the property because it is “occupied by a person who appears to have an interest in the property,” id., i.e., Constance. Constance is an “interested person” because, by potentially being Joseph's surviving spouse and joint owner of the property, as well as being the property's current occupant, she is a “person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the particular proceeding involved.” Id. § 731.201(23).

Even if Yates met the threshold possession requirement of section 733.608, the lien was still not properly imposed. This is because the expenses the lien represents were incurred for legal services having to do with the administration of the Estate. The services, as required by section 733.608(3), were not incurred for the specific purpose of preserving, maintaining, insuring, or protecting the homestead property.

Accordingly, the imposition of the lien was improper because it failed to meet the requirements of section 733.608. We, therefore, reverse its imposition.

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

MacIntyre, ex rel. Wedrall Trust v. Wedell, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 1393375 (Fla. 4th DCA May 20, 2009)

In Florida National Bank of Palm Beach County v. Genova, 460 So.2d 895 (Fla.1984), the Florida Supreme Court held that - as a matter of law - you can't challenge a settlor's removal of funds from her revocable trust on undue influence grounds.  In the Genova case the settlor's withdrawal of funds was challenged while the settlor was still alive. In this case the settlor was dead, so the question became whether the Genova rule applies even after the settlor has died. The 4th DCA said YES based on the following reasoning:

[T]he Genova decision itself plainly suggests the availability of an undue influence challenge to the settlor's revocation of his or her revocable trust should not turn upon whether the action is brought when the settlor is alive or deceased. Genova reached the supreme court as a consequence of the conflict between this court's decision in [Genova v. Florida National Bank of Palm Beach County, 433 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)] and the Second District's decision in Hoffman v. Kohns, 385 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In Genova, the settlor of the trust was alive, the settlor herself was attempting to revoke the trust, and the co-trustee bank refused to act on her attempted revocation. In Hoffman, the action challenging the decedent's revocation of the trust was brought by a would-have-been beneficiary of the trust after the settlor died. The Second District relied upon “undue influence” to disaffirm the decedent's revocation of the trust. The supreme court expressly disapproved this result in Hoffman after writing that “the principle of undue influence has no place in determining whether a competent settlor can revoke a revocable trust.” 460 So.2d at 896.

In sum, we hold that, as a consequence of Genova, even after the settlor's death, the settlor's revocation of her revocable trust during her lifetime is not subject to challenge on the ground that the revocation was the product of undue influence. Thus, having considered all issues raised, we affirm the dismissal, with prejudice, of the “undue influence” claim.

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

U.S. v. Guyton, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1308431 (M.D.Fla. May 08, 2009)

The IRS is the "über" creditor of any probate estate. Why? Two reasons. First, the personal representative (PR) is personally liable for any of the decedent's unpaid taxes to the extent the PR pays any debts due by the decedent before paying the decedent's tax liability. 31 U.S.C. § 3713(b); IRS Manual § 5.5.1. There's nothing like personal liability to focus the mind. Second, the normal rules simply don't apply to the IRS. As the court ruled in the linked-to order, the IRS is NOT subject to the limitations periods applicable to all other creditors:

Turning to Defendant's final threshold argument, case law makes clear that the Government's claim is not subject to state statutes of limitation, including Florida Statute § 733.705(8), absent its own consent. See e.g., United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414 (1940); see also United States v. Kellum, 523 F.2d 1284, 1286 (5th Cir.1975).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Blake v. Waks, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 1212242 (Fla. 3d DCA May 06, 2009) (NO. 3D09-980)

One of the defining characteristics of probate litigation is that cases are always decided by judges: no juries here. So if you're afraid you won't get a fair hearing because a judge says or does something demonstrating bias against you, you're entitled to request that he or she disqualify himself or herself. F.S. § 38.10; Fla. R. Jud. Adm. 2.330. In the linked-to opinion the 3d DCA applied this standard in granting a request to disqualify a probate judge for apparently being biased against the petitioner. Here's the court's one-paragraph explanation of its ruling:

According to duly executed affidavits, in denying agreed motions to disburse the net proceeds of an intestate estate to the petitioner Blake, a genealogical researcher who had found and who held unchallenged powers of attorney from the previously unknown heirs of the decedent, see Morse v. Clark, 890 So.2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (recognizing party status of genealogical service holding assignments from heirs), the presiding probate division circuit judge volunteered the statement, among others, that she did not trust him to make the required distribution to his principals. This comment, based on nothing in the record or otherwise, well justified the petitioner's expressed belief that she was not impartial, and therefore required the granting of his application for her disqualification. See Grandview Palace Condo. Ass'n v. City of N. Bay Vill., 974 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Miami Dade Coll. v. Turnberry Invs., 979 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Giblin, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 1139236 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr 29, 2009)

Here are the key facts of this case:

Decedent and Nivia Giblin were married in 1959. They had a daughter together. In 1981 they separated but never divorced. In 2000, decedent purchased a piece of residential property in Broward County. Title to the property was placed in the decedent's name. The wife and daughter lived in the home, but decedent never did. Decedent died in 2001.

Is this the decedent's homestead property? YES

As crazy as it may sound, yes, you can own homestead property you've never lived in if your "family" lives in the house. You get to this conclusion by applying the literal text of Florida's constitutional homestead provision. Article X, section 4 of the Florida Constitution provides, in relevant part:

(a) There shall be exempt from forced sale under process of any court .  .  .  the following property owned by a natural person:

(1) a homestead  .  .  .  [if it is] the residence of the owner or the owner's family;

*  *  *

(b) These exemptions shall inure to the surviving spouse or heirs of the owner.

(c) The homestead shall not be subject to devise if the owner is survived by spouse or minor child, except the homestead may be devised to the owner's spouse if there be no minor child....

(emphasis added).

Based on this language the 4th DCA affirmed a trial-court order ruling that the subject property was in fact the decedent's homestead . . . even if he never lived in the place. Here's how the court summarized its reasoning:

The language of article X, section 4 is clear and unambiguous. Here, decedent was a natural person who owned property occupied by his wife and child at the time of his death; thus, the property is homestead. Because decedent died leaving a spouse, the descent of his property is controlled by section 732.401(1), Florida Statutes (2001). As such, the wife is entitled to a life estate in the homestead with a vested remainder to the descendants. § 732.401(1), Fla. Stat.

By the way, this isn't the first time a court has come to this conclusion. See In re Colwell, 196 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 1999) (Under Florida law, homestead exemption can be established to each of two people who, while married, are legitimately living apart in separate residences, if they otherwise meet requirements of exemption.); Law v. Law, 738 So.2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (Husband, who permanently resided in separate home from wife, was entitled to homestead exemption on that residence from former wife’s lien, even though husband and current wife owned another home for which they claimed homestead exemption, where there was no indication that husband and wife were separated for illegitimate reasons.)

Lesson learned?  .  .  .  Florida's homestead law is NOT intuitive.

You can't assume you know the answer to that "simple" homestead question a colleague or client calls about "just to pick your brain." If the stakes are high enough, researching the issue - before it's litigated - is always the way to go. Once you're in court and briefing the issue you may be surprised by what you find . . . as I'm sure the losing side in this case was.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hansen v. Bothe, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 1066296 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr 22, 2009)

In the linked-to opinion the decedent's sole "intestate" heir, his mother, was pitted against her son's ex-wife and the 9 remainder beneficiaries of his revocable trust. Two key questions were litigated/ appealed in this case:

First, did the trust's remainder beneficiaries even have standing to participate in the case? Probate judge said "no," 2d DCA said "yes." [Click here to see why].

Second, did the decedent's divorce cause his trust to collapse in on itself and thus cease to exist under Florida's merger doctrine? No trust =  mom gets everything as son's sole intestate heir. Probate judge said "yes," and was again reversed by the 2d DCA.

Florida's Merger Doctrine:

Mom's argument for intestacy was made in two steps. Step one: argue the decedent's divorce divested his ex-wife of any interest in the trust by operation of F.S. 736.1105. Mom was right on this point. So far so good. Step two: argue the decedent's divorce divested the 9 remainder beneficiaries of any interest in the trust because son became the sole owner of the trust's assets upon his divorce, causing the trust to collapse in on itself and terminate under Florida's trust-merger doctrine. No trust =  mom gets everything as son's sole intestate heir.

Here's where things took a wrong turn. As explained by the 2d DCA, just because a person retains complete control over the assets of his own revocable trust, serves as his own trustee, and retains the power to divest any beneficiary at any time, doesn't mean his revocable trust isn't a valid trust (if it did, no revocable trust would ever be valid under Florida law!). Here's how the 2d DCA explained Florida's merger doctrine and why it didn't apply in this case:

The circuit court relied on the merger doctrine to conclude that the trust ceased to exist. The merger doctrine terminates the trust if the legal and equitable interests in the trust are held by one person. Mary F. Radford, George Gleason Bogert & George Taylor Bogert, The Law of Trusts & Trustees, § 1003 (3d ed.2006). Courts hesitate to employ the doctrine where injustice or frustration of the settlors' intent would result. Id. Upon the establishment of a trust, the legal title is held by the trustee, but equitable title rests with the beneficiary. In re Wells, 259 B.R. 776, 779 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2001).

The rationale behind the merger doctrine holds that “[w]hen the trustee is the only beneficiary, the trust is no longer needed to carry out the intention of the settlor.” The merger doctrine is applicable where either the entire beneficial interest passes to the trustee or where the legal title passes to a sole beneficiary. Upon merger of the legal and equitable titles, the holder of both interests possesses fee simple ownership of the property.

Id. (citations and footnote omitted).

Merger is inapplicable here. To the extent that Andreas Bothe became the sole grantor/trustee upon divorce, he held sole legal title; his intended remainder beneficiaries, however, retained an equitable interest. See Wells, 259 B.R. at 779; see also Denver Found. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 163 P.3d 1116, 1125 (Colo .2007) (emphasizing that for the doctrine of merger to apply, the legal and beneficial interests must be completely coextensive; if other equitable interests remain, the trust will not terminate).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Juega ex rel. Estate of Davidson v. Davidson, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 321564 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb 11, 2009)

The basic rule in Florida is that a representative party need not have standing if (1) that party has authority to act on behalf of the real party in interest and if (2) the real party in interest has standing. Florida rule of civil procedure 1.210(a) lists six types of representative parties who can bring an action in their own name without suing in the name of the real party in interest. One of those categories is the personal representative of a decedent's estate.

The first time the 3d DCA ruled in this case it focused on the personal-representative category [click here], but overlooked Florida's common-law rule with respect to standing: even if the plaintiff does not fall within one of the six exempt categories listed in rule 1.210(a), the plaintiff may still have standing to sue if he can establish he has some legal right to proceed on behalf of the real party in interest. It's this common-law rule that's at the heart of the linked-to opinion, in which the 3d DCA reversed itself on the issue of standing based on the following law:

Florida's real party in interest rule “is permissive only....” Kumar Corp. v. Nopal Lines, Ltd., 462 So.2d 1178, 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The rule states:

Every action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, but a personal representative, administrator, guardian, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, or a party expressly authorized by statute may sue in that person's own name without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a) (emphasis added).

“[A] nominal party, such as an agent, may bring suit in its own name for the benefit of the real party in interest.” Kumar, 462 So.2d at 1185 (emphasis added). “[A] principal may subsequently ratify its agent's act, even if originally unauthorized, and such ratification relates back and supplies the original authority.” Id.

“Thus, where a plaintiff is either the real party in interest or is maintaining the action on behalf of the real party in interest, its action cannot be terminated on the ground that it lacks standing.” Id. at 1183; see Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Revoredo, 955 So.2d 33, 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (collection and litigation agent has standing to bring mortgage foreclosure action); Eastern Inv., LLC v. Cyberfile, Inc., 947 So.2d 630, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (action may be maintained by assignee; “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.210(a) permits an action to be prosecuted in the name of someone other than, but acting for the real party in interest.”)

The affidavit filed by the son in this case is indistinguishable from the affidavit filed by the principal in Kumar. Id. at 1181. The facts stated in the Kumar affidavit, as here, establish that the agent, Juega, has standing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here are the 2007 stat's for the probate courts in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach county. You can find all of this data here and download numbers for your local probate court here. My chart only reports on the "cases filed" figures; click here, here and here for all the details. But numbers alone don't tell the whole story. To understand the breadth of issues probate judges contend with in an average year, below is the official definition given for each of the listed categories. Finally, as a rough measure of how busy these judges are on average, I took the total filing figure and divided it by the number of probate judges serving in each respective county.

So what’s it all mean?

In Dade - on average - each judge took on close to 2,600 NEW cases in 2007, and in Broward and Palm Beach counties the average new case load figure hovered around 2,000 per judge. Keep in mind that these figures don’t take into account each judge’s EXISTING case load. These case-load figures may be appropriate for uncontested probate proceedings, which likely represent 99% of the cases administered by our probate courts. However, when it comes to that 1% of probate cases that are litigated, these same case-load figures suggest to me that the “cold judge” factor I wrote about here needs to be weighed heavily every time you ask a court system designed to handle un-contested proceedings to adjudicate a complex trial or basically rule on any contested and technically demanding issue or pre-trial motion of significance that can’t be disposed of in the few minutes allotted to the average probate matter. 

2007 Probate Court Filing Statistics

Type of Case	Dade	Broward	Palm Beach
Probate	4,103	4,917	4,823
Guardianship	936	504	495
Trust	67	84	234
Baker Act	3,653	1,943	1,110
Substance Abuse	709	589	1,021
Other Social	884	392	246
Total	10,352	8,429	7,929
# Judges	4	4	4
Total/Judge	2,588	2,107	1,982

Glossary: 

Probate: All matters relating to the validity of wills and their execution; distribution, management, sale, transfer and accounting of estate property; and ancillary administration pursuant to chapters 731, 732, 733, 734, and 735, Florida Statutes.

Guardianship (Adult or Minor): All matters relating to determination of status; contracts and conveyances of incompetents; maintenance custody of wards and their property interests; control and restoration of rights; appointment and removal of guardians pursuant to chapter 744, Florida Statues; appointment of guardian advocates for individuals with developmental disabilities pursuant to section 393.12, Florida Statutes; and actions to remove the disabilities of non-age minors pursuant to sections 743.08 and 743.09, Florida Statutes.

Trusts: All matters relating to the right of property, real or personal, held by one party for the benefit of another pursuant to chapter [736], Florida Statutes.

Florida Mental Health Act or Baker Act: All matters relating to the care and treatment of individuals with mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders pursuant to sections 394.463 and 394.467, Florida Statutes.

Substance Abuse Act: All matters related to the involuntary assessment/treatment of substance abuse pursuant to sections 397.6811 and 397.693, Florida Statutes.

Other Social Cases: All other matters involving involuntary commitment not included under the Baker and Substance Abuse Act categories. The following types of cases would
be included, but not limited to:

• Tuberculosis control cases pursuant to sections 392.55, 392.56, and 392.57, Florida Statutes;
• Developmental disability cases under section 393.11, Florida Statutes;
• Review of surrogate or proxy’s health care decisions pursuant to section 765.105, Florida Statutes, and rule 5.900, Florida Probate Rules;
• Incapacity determination cases pursuant to sections 744.3201, 744.3215, and 744.331, Florida Statutes;
• Adult Protective Services Act cases pursuant to section 415.104, Florida Statutes.

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

Brigham v. Brigham, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 454492 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb 25, 2009)

This case has already had a huge impact on Florida's trust-law landscape. When the 3d DCA first weighed in on this case in 2006, it upheld a trial court ruling cutting the trustees off from trust assets to pay for their legal-defense [click here]. That opinion lead directly to a change in Florida's trust code that impacts every new trust-related lawsuit in this state [click here].

This time around the 3d DCA again made new law, addressing the following issue of first impression:

Is the trustee of a "land trust" subject to the conflict-of-interest rules generally applicable to trustees under Florida law?

The uncertainty at the heart of this question is a consequence of the unique nature of land trusts, sometimes referred to as "Illinois land trusts" because of where they were first invented [click here for more on land trusts]. The defining characteristic of a land trust is that the trustee doesn't have any of the independent fiduciary authority of a regular trustee, all a land-trust trustee is supposed to do is follow orders and hold title to real property. Here's a quote from the linked-to opinion encapsulating this point:

The trustee accordingly is a mere vessel of title. It exercises no control over the property and only acts according to the beneficiaries' directions. People v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 75 Ill.2d 479, 27 Ill.Dec. 476, 389 N.E.2d 540 (1979). Accordingly, the single warranty or representation that a trustee makes upon execution of documents is that it has the power and authority to appropriately execute the instruments.

If all you are is a "mere vessel of title" with no independent fiduciary authority, does it make sense to subject you to the duties and conflict-of-interest rules generally applicable to trustees? According to the 3d DCA the answer is "YES," here's why:

Appellees argue that pursuant to section 731.201(33), land trusts are excluded from the definition of a “trust” under all of chapter 737. We disagree. Chapter 737 has been applied by courts to regulate and to rule on land trusts, and chapter 737 is directly referred to in the Florida Land Trust Act, section 689.071(5). The definition of a “trust” under section 731.201(33), states it does not include a land trust created under section 689.05. However, the trust created by the EFP Brigham Land Trust No. 1 dated September 28, 1991 (the “EFP Trust”), was not a land trust created under section 689.05. Although the EFP Trust was executed by Marion and was a written trust, it did not comply with the requirements of section 689.071.

*  *  *  *  *

The EFP Trust Deed failed to contain language that conferred on Dana, the trustee, the power and authority “either to protect, conserve and to sell, or to lease, or to encumber, or otherwise to manage and dispose of the real property described in the recorded instrument.” Because Dana, as the lawyer that created and transferred the Deed to North Carolina attorneys for recordation, failed to include the formalities in the Deed required to create a Florida Land Trust under section 689.071, it is a trust regulated by chapter 737.

Moreover, even if it had qualified as a land trust, we agree with appellants that the reasoning set forth in the case of In re Saber, 233 B.R. 547 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla.1999), is instructive on why the requirements of section 737.403, should apply to Dana, as the trustee: “Although the real and personal property interests of Florida land trust are divided between the trustee and beneficiary, a Florida Land Trust is essentially the same as an ordinary trust in terms of the duties, rights and responsibilities of the trustee and beneficiary.” Id. at 554. For these reasons, Dana, as Trustee, of either a land trust or a trust, was required to comply with section 737.403(2), when Dana gifted the Brigham Tree Farm Property to himself.

Additional Take-Away Points:

The linked-to opinion is long and it covers a lot of ground. Clearly, this case was hotly contested by determined lawyers on both sides who knew their way around a court room. But aside from the key land-trust ruling, I think there are two additional take-away points probate lawyers in general can learn from.

• A de novo appellate standard of review can be your best friend in trust litigation:

First, the linked-to opinion is another example of why "de novo" review can be your best friend in trust litigation. That was the standard of review in this case:

The trial court's failure to apply and/or the misinterpretation of several trust statutes are matters of law subject to de novo review. In addition, the standard of review is also de novo when reviewing the trial court's interpretation and application of Florida law. See Gordon v. Regier, 839 So.2d 715, 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gilliam v. Smart, 809 So.2d 905, 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Likewise, the interpretation of several unambiguous trust provisions is also subject to de novo review. See Miller v. Kase, 789 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Based on this standard the 3d DCA basically stepped in and second guessed almost every substantive decision made by the trial-court judge, reversing every order he entered after what must have been a very long trial. If you're representing the side trying to sue the trustee, winning your case based on trustee negligence is a daunting task [click here], and you have little recourse on appeal. Fact-based rulings by the trial-court judge are almost untouchable on appeal. But, as I've written before [click here], if the case against the trustee is framed as a fight over how a statute or trust instrument is supposed to be applied, then you basically get a do over on appeal because of the de novo review standard. That's what the plaintiffs did in this case and it paid off for them in a stunning appellate victory.

• De-facto trustee concept:

Probate litigation is usually the last act in a play that's been going on for years. The starting point in this litigation often revolves around allegations of wrong doing by someone the decedent trusted and counted on before he or she died. This trusted person could be a family member or some sort of care giver (e.g., an at-home nurse). These allegations are often the basis for an undue-influence claim. In the linked-to opinion the plaintiffs went a step further, using these sorts of allegations as a basis for a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against someone who wasn't the named trustee of any the decedent's multiple trust. So how'd they do it? By implication:

Turning now to Patricia, the record clearly shows that she acted as a fiduciary for Marion and as Dana's de-facto trustee conducting all of the tasks either at the direction of Dana or on her own accord. Patricia owed a fiduciary duty to Marion. “If a relation of trust and confidence exists between the parties (that is to say, where confidence is reposed by one party and a trust accepted by the other, or where confidence has been acquired and abused), that is sufficient as a predicate for relief.” Doe v. Evans, 814 So.2d 370, 374 (Fla.2002); Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc., 842 So.2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). “Fiduciary relationships may be implied in law and such relationships are ‘premised upon the specific factual situation surrounding the transaction and the relationship of the parties.’ ” Id. at 207. Courts have found a fiduciary relation implied in law when “confidence is reposed by one party and a trust accepted by the other.” Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). To establish a fiduciary relationship, a party must allege some degree of dependency on one side and some degree of undertaking on the other side to advise, counsel and protect the weaker party. Watkins v. NCNB Nat'l Bank of Fla., N.A., 622 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

Moreover, Patricia owed a duty to Marion as Marion's employee. An employee owes a duty to her employer to exercise diligence and good faith in matters relating to the employment. Haynes v. The Singer Co., 1981 WL 2344 (N.D.Fla. June 19, 1981); Kilgore Ace Hardware, Inc. v. Newsome, 352 So.2d 918, 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). It is undisputed that Patricia was Marion's employee. Additionally, the record reflects that Patricia received $218,607, ostensibly as salary, plus $56,000 as gifts during the final years of Marion's life.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Levine v. Levine, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 482260 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb 27, 2009)

Whether or not an adult is in fact legally "incapacitated" is often the crux of the case in contested guardianship proceedings. The fact finders that are supposed to answer that question are the members of the examining committee appointed by the probate judge pursuant to F.S. § 744.331.

If your client disagrees with the committee's findings, you won't get your day in court by simply demanding an evidentiary hearing. Under the peculiar procedural rules governing guardianship proceedings, you first have to file a motion to strike the committee's report then have your evidentiary hearing. Make sense? I don't think so, but according to the 5th DCA, that's the law. Here's why:

Evidentiary Hearing? Wrong Answer:

Dr. Levine contends that the language of [F.S. § 744.331(4)] notwithstanding, he should have the right to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the opinions of the examining committee members, either individually or collectively. We disagree, as the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. Once a majority of the examining committee concluded that Mr. Levine was not incapacitated, the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition to determine incapacity and the petition for the appointment of a guardian. See Mathes v. Huelsman, 743 So.2d 626, 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding once examining committee concluded that alleged incapacitated person had full capacity, trial court was required to dismiss petition to determine incapacity); see also In re Keene, 343 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

Motion to Strike? Right Answer:

FN1. Ms. Stimmel contends that if the examining committee concludes that the alleged incapacitated person is not incapacitated, there is no remedy available to the other interested parties involved in the proceeding even if the report is materially deficient. We disagree. We do not believe that the court must rely on a report from the examining committee which is materially deficient. However, rather than conducting an evidentiary hearing to test the examining committee's report, an action that would violate [F.S. § 744.331(4)], a more appropriate remedy would be for the court, or any interested party, to move to strike the report. If such a motion is granted, the court could then order a re-examination by the existing committee (or committee member) or appoint a new committee (or committee member) and order a re-examination.

Bonus Point: Who Pays the Committee's Fees?

If the examining committee says the person being examined is OK, that may be good news for the potential ward, but bad news for the examining committee. Why? Because now there's no guardianship "estate" from which to pay their fees. So who pays? The statute doesn't cover that contingency (oops!), a "gap" in the law I first wrote about here. In this case the probate judge ordered the petitioner to pay: "wrong answer" says the 5th DCA:

The trial court also ordered Dr. Levine to pay the examining committee's fees. Ms. Stimmel concedes error. While section 744.331(7)(a) allows the trial court to award members of the examining committee reasonable fees, subparagraph (c) of that section provides that the cost and attorney's fees of a dismissed petition are to be assessed against the petitioner only if the court finds the petition to have been filed in bad faith. The court made no such finding here. We recognize that the statute has a gap in determining responsibility for payment of the examining committee fees when a good faith petition is denied or dismissed. See Ehrlich v. Severson, 985 So.2d 639, 640 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). As did the Ehrlich court, we urge the Legislature to specify who pays the examining committee fees in this circumstance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA) addresses a problem that needs fixing in Florida: interstate jurisdiction controversies involving adult guardianship proceedings. As I've written before, due to our highly mobile popluation (especially with respect to retiring seniors) inter-state forum shopping in contested guardianship proceedings is a growing problem [click here]. So it's not surprising these cases are already bubbling up through our appellate court system [click here].

The UAGPPJA addresses the forum shopping problem by creating a reliable process for determining with certainty which state will have jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or conservator if there is a conflict among one or more states. The UAGPPJA's legislative status in Florida is unclear, although it is getting some attention in Tallahassee. Legislation adopting the uniform act in Florida was introduced in January 2009 -  then withdrawn the next month (HB 305). Stay tuned for more.

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

Provost v. Justin, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 484633 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb 27, 2009)

When Florida adopted its version of the Uniform Trust Code in 2007 [click here], it modernized and sometimes dramatically changed our prior body of trust law. One of the fundamental changes was a reversal of the presumption regarding revocability of trusts: the presumption used to be a trust is NOT revocable; F.S. 736.0602(1) now provides that trusts are revocable by default. My guess is that this change in the law may have been one of the causes for the linked-to case, although less-than-clear drafting was probably the primary culprit. Here's how the leading expert on our new trust code, Prof. Powell, explained the importance of clear drafting in this Fl. Bar Journal article explaining the new code:

Methods of Amending or Revoking Trusts
Along with stating that it is revocable, a well-drafted revocable trust instrument will specify the method that is to be used to accomplish a revocation or amendment. If the trust instrument does this, the provision in the instrument is exclusive in the sense that the trust can be revoked or amended only by substantially complying with the method stated in the instrument. If the instrument does not specify a method, any clear and convincing manifestation of the settlor’s intent to revoke is sufficient, including a provision in the settlor’s later will or codicil expressly revoking the trust or specifically devising property that would otherwise pass according to the trust terms.[FN 57]

[FN 57] See generally §736.0602(3)(b). The “substantial compliance” test in this section may be more lenient than existing Florida law, which appears to require strict compliance. See Euart v. Yoakley, 456 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1984).

In the linked-to opinion the joint revocable trust agreement contained language limiting the right of amendment to the settlors "during their lives." After one of them died, the survivor attempted to amend their joint trust agreement in a way that would basically disinherit their three children and leave most of the estate to the widow's caregiver. This was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Here's how the 2d DCA explained its rationale for rejecting the purported trust-agreement amendment and reversing the trial court's judgment:

“The polestar of trust interpretation is the settlors' intent.” L'Argent v. Barnett Bank, N.A., 730 So.2d 395, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). “In determining the settlors' intent, the court should not ‘resort to isolated words and phrases'; instead, the court should construe ‘the instrument as a whole,’ taking into account the general dispositional scheme.” Roberts v. Sarros, 920 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citations omitted). The parties agree that these principles apply to the case at hand and rely on both L'Argent and Roberts in disputing the interpretation this court should give to the Trust.

As in L'Argent, the Trust contains language that limits the right of amendment to the grantors “during their lives.” See 730 So.2d at 397. Based on our review of the entire Trust document, we conclude that both grantors needed to execute any amendment to the Trust. Because Aurele Provost did not execute the amendment prepared by Geraldine Provost, the amendment is ineffective. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Appellees Elizabeth Justin and Sharon Harsch and remand for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of Appellants Levis Provost, Marquis Provost, and Constance Monty.

By the way, we should expect to see more and more joint revocable trusts as part of our practice. Especially if spousal portability of estate-tax exemptions is folded into any new version of the estate tax (and I think it will, click here). For a solid primer on joint revocable trusts see Joint Trusts in Separate Property States by frequent lecturer and Chicago estate planning attorney Louis Harrison.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Griem v. Becker, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 454517 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb 25, 2009)

My assumption regarding "bearer" shares in offshore companies is that they're sold to people who are up to no good (probably trying to cheat on their taxes), and I'm not the only one who feels that way [click here]. From an asset protection standpoint, the main advantage of bearer shares is the supposed ability to quickly and anonymously transfer ownership of your shares. That may be well and good while you're alive, but if you drop dead, figuring out who owns your shares won't be easy, as the litigants in this case found out.

At the probate court level the judge bought the argument that when it comes to bearer shares in a BVI company, possession = ownership, period, end of story. Which is a fair assumption, and what I would have guessed before reading the linked-to opinion. Not so, says the 3d DCA, in an opinion that's a road map for anyone who ever has to deal with this issue in the future. The two big take-away points from this case are:

1. Florida law does NOT control the ownership issue:

The appellee relies on section 673.2011(1), Florida Statutes (2005), which states, “[I]f an instrument is payable to bearer, it may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone.” . . . This reliance, however, is misplaced. Under the UCC, “instruments” are unconditional promises or orders to pay a fixed amount of money and are addressed in Article 3 (chapter 673 of the Florida Statutes), as distinguished from “securities,” addressed in Article 8 (chapter 678 of the Florida Statutes). The shares in Conti-Tech are securities. Under section [678.1101], the local law of the issuer's jurisdiction, BVI, governs claims regarding transfer of the Conti-Tech shares.

2. Determining ownership of bearer shares is a fact-intensive exercise:

On appeal the 3d DCA reversed the probate court's summary judgment order expressly rejecting the argument that possession is "ten tenths of the law" when it comes to figuring out who owns bearer shares. Ownership of bearer shares turns out to be way more fact intensive than most of us would have guessed.

Simply stated, the mere possession of these BVI share certificates does not immunize the appellee from investigation or claim by the personal representative. The appellee's affidavit raises more questions than it answers: since Conti-Tech had a U.S. securities account, did it file U.S. income tax returns in 2003, 2004, and 2005, potentially providing evidence linking the company to its shareholder? If Conti-Tech's shareholder received any part of its income, would that not have been disclosed on his or her U.S. income tax return? FN6 Did Conti-Tech's memorandum authorize bearer shares? Wouldn't Merrill Lynch, Miami, have required a copy of the memorandum as part of the account-opening documentation for Conti-Tech's securities account? Wouldn't Conti-Tech's registered agent and the depositary custodians have records revealing the beneficial holders and transfers? How could Becker have obtained her appointment as director effective over seven months after Mr. Griem's death unless she delivered documentary evidence of her ownership of the shares to the registered agent of Conti-Tech before that? Does the registered agent have other certificates evidencing transfers of ownership or custodians in effect before Mr. Griem's death?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Price v. Abate, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 559908 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar 06, 2009)

In the linked-to case the 5th DCA broke new ground. The parties were litigating what the word "presence" means for purposes of witnessing a will under F.S. 732.502(1)(c):

Witnesses' signatures.--The attesting witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each other.

Apparently no one's asked a Florida appellate court to rule on this issue before.

Based on the following testimony, the probate court concluded that even though the witnesses were in the same room as the testator when he signed the purported will, they weren't in his "presence," thus warranting summary judgment rejecting the will:

In seeking summary judgment, Flanigan's heirs asserted that Price could not sustain her burden of proving that Flanigan's purported lost will had been properly attested to. To support their claim, the heirs cited to the deposition testimony of the only living witnesses to the execution of Flanigan's purported lost will, bank employees Dalila Ramos and Donna Fazio.

Ramos testified that Flanigan asked her to notarize a hand-written piece of paper which stated “that he was leaving basically everything that he owned to Fran Price.” Ramos testified that she did not remember if Flanigan signed the paper in her presence or not. Ramos further testified that after she notarized the document she called over a teller named Donna Fazio to act as a witness. Critical to this appeal, she further testified:

Q. Now, when you signed it, was Donna Fazio present?

A. No.

* * *

Q. And Donna Fazio did not see you sign the document; is that correct?
A. That is correct.

Donna Fazio's deposition testimony was consistent with the testimony submitted by Ramos. In that regard, Fazio testified that Ramos summoned her by using a phone intercom, and that Ramos asked her to witness a document:

Q. You say by the time you got there, everything was already signed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, did you see anybody sign?

A. No.

Q. Were you present when anybody signed?

A. No.

The trial court concluded that entry of summary judgment in favor of the heirs and against Price was warranted because the uncontradicted record evidence demonstrated that Ramos and Fazio did not sign in the presence of each other because Fazio was not in the presence of Ramos when Ramos signed the document.

On appeal the 5th DCA upheld the probate court's ruling based on the following rationale:

Price challenges this ruling, conceding that there are no cases in Florida which expressly define the term “in the presence of each other” for purposes of the statute but claiming that, given the physical proximity of the two witnesses, the determination of this issue involves genuine issues of material fact which should be determined by the trier of fact after hearing the actual testimony of the witnesses. We disagree.

The decision issued by our Supreme Court in State v. Werner, 609 So.2d 585 (Fla.1992), supports the trial court's ruling. In that case, the Court was asked to define the word “presence” for purposes of the lewd and lascivious act statute, section 800.04(3) of the Florida Statutes, which provides that any person who knowingly commits any lewd or lascivious act “in the presence of” any child under the age of 16 years without committing the crime of sexual battery is guilty of a felony of the second degree. The State argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of “presence” is “the part of space within one's immediate vicinity.” Upon review, the Court rejected the State's argument and concluded that, while the child need not be able to articulate or even comprehend what the offender is doing, the child must see or sense that a lewd or lascivious act is taking place for a violation to occur.

Application of this reasoning to the instant case supports the trial court's conclusion that the mere fact that Ramos and Fazio were in the vicinity of one another at the time Ramos signed Flanigan's will was insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement that Ramos sign the will in Fazio's presence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling.

I think the 5th DCA got this one right, and I'm sure most Florida probate lawyers would agree with me. Being "present" as a witness when someone's signing his will means more than being in the same room at the same time, the witness has to see the person sign his will, and understand in a general sense what the heck is going on. I think it's also important to note that in a roundabout way the 1st DCA came to a similar conclusion in 2005 with respect to the minimum requirements for witnessing a will [click here], although that opinion wasn't nearly as thoughtful and well-articulated as this one.

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

Edelstein v. Beagell, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 500913 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb 27, 2009)

Not all probate orders are created equal. Some are appealable, and some aren't. The controlling rule is broadly stated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2) as follows:

(a) Applicability. This rule applies to those proceedings that . . . (2) seek review of orders entered in probate and guardianship matters that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code;

The rule seems simple, but figuring out which orders "finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person" is easier said than done. In the linked-to case the appellant guessed wrong and had her appeal dismissed by the 1st DCA. Here's how the court explained its ruling:

Having considered the appellant's response to this Court's order of December 11, 2008, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal, entitled “Final Order on Petition for Determination of Beneficiaries,” denied the petition below without making any final determination as to the beneficiaries of the estate. Therefore, the order on appeal did not “finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person,” so as to be appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2). See Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sanchez v. Masterhan, 837 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Do we need a better rule?

A subcommittee of the Probate and Trust Litigation Committee has been looking at ways to add a bit more certainty to the question of when a probate order is or is not appealable. They've been working on this since 2007 and still no changes, so don't hold your breath. But in the meantime committee members Sean Kelley, Tom Karr and Peter Sachs have produced an extremely thorough 38-page white paper [click here] that's worth holding on to. Their analysis of the existing rule and how it's been applied by each of the DCAs is a must read the next time you're trying to figure out whether to file that notice of appeal . . . or not.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Greenberg Traurig, P.A. v. Bresnahan, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 383622 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 18, 2009)

In the linked-to case the trustee asserted the "advice of counsel defense" to a lawsuit alleging a breach of fiduciary duty. Here's how the defense was asserted:

Within that trust litigation, D'Andrea asserted the “advice of counsel defense,” pointing to his consultation with Greenberg Traurig and, specifically, attorney Francis B. Brogan, Jr. D'Andrea moved for summary judgment, and provided a detailed affidavit from attorney Brogan. Within that affidavit, attorney Brogan addresses the legal advice given regarding the property at issue in the trust litigation.

This defense may ultimately work, but it comes with a risk: once you open the door to your lawyer's advice by using it as an affirmative defense, you've waived the attorney-client privilege within the scope of that advice. And that may be OK, but be ready to litigate the "scope" of your waiver. Which is what happened in this case:

What followed was a subpoena for deposition duces tecum and notice of taking deposition on the non-party Records Custodian for Greenberg Traurig, P.A. The subpoena sought broad categories of discovery relating to the Trust.

Greenberg Traurig moved to quash the subpoena and for protective orders, arguing that D'Andrea's limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege applied only to the transaction surrounding the specific property at issue in the underlying litigation. Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal, 943 So.2d 812, 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Nevertheless, the firm produced documents, though it redacted portions which it deemed beyond that limited waiver. Following the trial court's in camera inspection of the redacted documents, it ordered Greenberg Traurig's Record Custodian to produce all records, in unredacted form.

And here's why the 4th DCA quashed the probate court's order:

We quash the portion of the order that requires the unredacted production of documents GT 01, GT 05, GT 11-12, and GT 13-30. The subject matter associated with documents GT 01 and GT 11-12 is beyond the scope of the express limited waiver. Paradise Divers, 943 So.2d at 814. The remaining redactions concern internal housekeeping information and billing entries and fee amounts, which in this case should remain confidential. See generally Paskoski v. Johnson, 626 So.2d 338, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Jacob v. Barton, 877 So.2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Garcia v. Celestron, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 249211 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb 04, 2009)

In the linked-to opinion the 3d DCA provides a solid summary of the procedural steps and law governing adjudications of ambiguous wills in Florida. This is a bread-and-butter issue for most probate litigators, so it’s helpful to have an appellate opinion you can whip out for your judge or opposing counsel if anyone needs a quick refresher course on how these cases should be handled.

Step One: The court needs to rule on whether the disputed provisions of the will are ambiguous:

We affirm the trial court's ruling that the disputed provisions of the will are ambiguous . . . The will left the decedent's house to his widow, and should she predecease him, the property was to be divided among six named family beneficiaries. The will then provides as follows:

I further leave a life estate in said property to my daughter, Mercy Maqueira [Mercy Garcia], so that she may live in and enjoy this property.... Upon her death, the property shall be sold and the proceeds divided equally among those living at the time of my death so named herein.... If Mercy so desires, she may sell this property at anytime and divide the proceeds as above stated.

Step Two: If the will’s ambiguous, you’re entitled to present parole evidence at trial to determine it’s meaning:

The question presented to the trial court was whether the language “so that she may live in and enjoy this property” made the life estate determinable, requiring Mercy to either live in the property or sell it, or whether the term is one of clarification, allowing her to choose whether to live in it or not. The trial court concluded that these terms taken together are ambiguous and took evidence to determine the testator's intent. Based upon the evidence, the trial court concluded that the decedent intended that Mercy be provided with a place for her and her children to live, and that if Mercy did not live in the property, it should be sold and the proceeds equally distributed among the six listed beneficiaries. Evidence adduced at trial revealed that Mercy did not live in the house, but rented it out, and that she had no intent to live there. The trial court ordered the property to be sold because Mercy did not live in it and evidenced no intention to live in it in the future. Mercy Garcia appealed.

We agree with the trial court that the provisions of the will are ambiguous. As such, the trial court correctly received parol evidence in order to resolve the apparently contradictory provisions. See Perkins v. O'Donald, 82 So. 401 (Fla.1919) (holding that parol evidence may be received if the will is in some way ambiguous, in order to ascertain the testator's intent); Harbie v. Falk, 907 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Campbell v. Campbell, 489 So.2d 774, 776-777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Hulsh v. Hulsh, 431 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); In re Estate of Rice, 406 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The trial court based its findings on competent, substantial evidence, and we thus affirm the final judgment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Kurzon, 399 B.R. 274 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. Apr 17, 2008)

When it comes to enforcing money judgments: bankruptcy is the last refuge of a scoundrel. But if the particular scoundrel you're trying to track down is a former personal representative who's been surcharged by your probate judge, you can tell him to wipe that smirk off his face because "no", not even bankruptcy will save him now.

In the linked-to order the bankruptcy court ruled that a $60,000 money judgment previously entered against a Chapter 7 debtor in his capacity as personal representative of his late aunt's probate estate was NOT subject to discharge. Here's why:

The Plaintiff, to prevail on its 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(4) fraud or defalcation nondischargeability count, must establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (i) the Debtor was acting in a fiduciary capacity; and (ii) while acting in a fiduciary capacity, he committed fraud or defalcation. In re Goodwin, 355 B.R. 337, 343 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2006). The fiduciary relationship must exist at the time the act creating the debt was committed. Guerra v. Fernandez-Rocha (In re Fernandez-Rocha), 451 F.3d 813, 817 (11th Cir.2006).

.     .     .     .     .

The Debtor was obligated to make distribution expeditiously to the Plaintiff, who was a beneficiary of the Will, pursuant to Florida Statute Section 733.602(1). The Probate Court found the Debtor failed to make distribution of $60,000.00 to the Plaintiff. He was removed as the Personal Representative as a result of such failing. His failure to make distribution to the Plaintiff of funds that were entrusted to him as the Personal Representative constitutes a defalcation of fiduciary duty. Fla. Stat. §§ 733.602(1), 733.608(1)(c), 733.609(1); Quaif, 4 F.3d at 955.

The Judgment is a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Judgment litigation and this adversary proceeding involve the same operative facts and the same parties. The Judgment issued by the Probate Court is binding in this proceeding pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Judgment is entitled to preclusive effect and the Debtor is barred from challenging it. The Plaintiff has established the Judgment Debt is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(4).

The Plaintiff's documentary evidence, independently of the Judgment, establishes the Judgment Debt is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(4). The Debtor did not act in the best interests of the estate. He was required to keep the estate funds separate from his personal and business funds. Fla. Stat. § 733.602(1); Lahurd, 632 So.2d at 1104. He diverted all of the cash assets of the estate to his personal and business accounts, without the knowledge or the consent of the estate beneficiaries, and dissipated the funds for his own personal benefit. Such actions constitute defalcations of his fiduciary duty.

The Debtor concealed such diversion and dissipation through materially false and fraudulent accountings filed with the Probate Court. He failed to settle the estate and distribute the assets to the estate's beneficiaries and claimants. The Judgment Debt results from his improper conduct. The Judgment Debt is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(4). In re Valdes, 98 B.R. at 80.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Especially in large or fairly complex estates or trusts, the ultimate value of your client's inheritance often depends in large part on how income and expense items are accounted for and allocated among the beneficiaries. Spotting these fiduciary accounting issues in advance (either as an estate planner or probate lawyer) is easier said than done.

One way to tackle that problem is to have a list of hot-button fiduciary accounting scenarios to be on the look out for. Which is exactly what William C. Carroll and John W. Randolph, Jr., deliver in an excellent article they published in this month's Florida Bar Journal. In Things That May Surprise You About Florida’s Principal and Income Act and Related Accounting Law, Part I, the authors explain how Florida's Principal and Income Act would apply (in often unexpected ways) in each of the following scenarios:

1. Specifically Devised Real Estate
2. Rental Real Estate
3. Distributions Received by a Private Trustee from Investment Entity and a Targeted Entity
4. Allocation of Receipts at Decedent’s Death
5. Death of an Income Beneficiary
6. Pecuniary Amounts

Here's an excerpt from the article's introduction:

In 2002, the Florida Legislature adopted the Florida Uniform Principal and Income Act, effective on January 1, 2003 (the act). The act, which is found in F.S. Ch. 738, is a modified version of the Uniform Principal and Income Act (1997) [click here]. The statutory sections of the act allocate trust and estate receipts and disbursements between income and principal. Additionally, the act contains provisions that allow a trustee to make adjustments between income and principal (§738.104) and to convert a trust to a unitrust (§738.1041). Sections 738.104 and 738.1041 are beyond the scope of this article.

It is significant to note that the statutory sections of the act are “default” sections, meaning that the provisions of Ch. 738 only apply if the terms of the trust or will do not contain a different provision or do not give the fiduciary a discretionary power of administration. It is critically important that attorneys practicing in the trusts and estates area have a working knowledge of the act. Through extensive examples, this two-part article will explore the inner workings of some of the more significant provisions of the act. These examples assume that the will or trust is silent as to allocating the receipt or disbursement at issue to either income or principal, and does not give the fiduciary a discretionary power of administration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Fintak v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 413599 (M.D.Fla. Feb 18, 2009)

Say you have a trust that owns two CDs that together are worth a little over $200,000 and Wachovia pays them out to one of your three co-trustees . . . and he runs off with the loot. Now assume the bank wasn't supposed to pay those CDs unless at least two of the co-trustees signed off on the transaction. Oops!!

Most of us - whether we represent the bank or the trust - would intuitively know there's a lawsuit lurking around in there somewhere, but actually formulating that lawsuit (or predicting what the claims will be if you're playing defense) is how lawyers add value. Once you know what the claims will be, both sides can evaluate the risks of winning/losing and negotiate a settlement  before a lot of money, time and effort is poured into pre-trial motion practice.

And that's where the linked-to order comes into play: we now have a battle-tested road map for evaluating this type of case. The plaintiffs in this case sued Wachovia on the following three grounds:

• conversion (Count I),
• breach of contract (Count II), and
• negligence (Count III)

Wachovia sought to dismiss the conversion and negligence counts . . .  and lost. Here's why the court said the claims stood.

Conversion:

In Count I, the plaintiffs allege that Wachovia is liable for [Wachovia's] conversion of the trust's funds in violation of Section 673.4021, Florida Statutes. (Doc. 2, ¶ 13) The defendant argues that the conversion claim fails because no conversion action arises from a mere obligation to pay money and because the plaintiffs “fail to describe with particularity any identified, specific money.” (Doc. 7 at 3) The statute provides:

The law applicable to conversion of personal property applies to instruments. An instrument is also converted if it is taken by transfer, other than a negotiation, from a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or a bank makes or obtains payment with respect to the instrument for a person not entitled to enforce the instrument or receive payment.

§ 673.4021, Fla. Stat . Under the Florida Commercial Code, a certificate of deposit is an “instrument.” See § 673.1041, Fla. Stat .

The plaintiffs allege that Wachovia converted the certificates of deposit by allowing Edmund Fintak to redeem the certificates without obtaining the signatures of two trustees. Construed most favorably to the plaintiffs, the allegations in the complaint establish that [Wachovia] permitted Edmund Fintak to redeem the certificates of deposit and that Edmund Fintak lacked the authority to receive payment without the signature of at least one more trustee. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count I is DENIED.

Negligence:

In Count III, the plaintiffs allege that [Wachovia] negligently failed to comply with the terms of the certification of trust. (Doc. 2, ¶¶ 22-29) Moving for dismissal of Count III, Wachovia argues that the economic loss rule bars the plaintiffs' negligence claim. However, the economic loss rule primarily applies “to limit actions in the product liability context.” See Moransais v. Heathman, 744 So.2d 973, 983 (Fla.1999); Ron's Quality Towing, Inc. v. Se. Bank of Fla., 765 So.2d 134, 136-37 (tort claims against bank not barred by the economic loss rule). Wachovia fails to show that the economic loss rule bars the plaintiffs' negligence claim. See Fed. Ins. Co. v. NCNB Nat'l Bank of N.C., 958 F.2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir.1992) (applying Florida law and recognizing a negligence action against a bank for bank's failing to obtain two hand signatures before paying on corporate checks). Accordingly, Wachovia's motion to dismiss Count III is DENIED.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Morris v. Knight, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 321586 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 11, 2009)

Trial Judge's Power in Guardianship Proceedings:

Florida probate judges get a huge amount of deference when deciding whom to appoint as guardian. So if your client is on the losing end of an order appointing someone else guardian, an appeal is probably a waste of money. Here's how this point was made in the linked-to opinion:

 The standard of review here is abuse of discretion. In re Guardianship of Sitter, 779 So.2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The appointment of guardian is a discretionary act of the trial court, which must be supported by logic and justification and founded on substantial competent evidence. Id. at 348. The trial court's decision should be reviewed for reasonableness. Id. And the appellate court should not find an abuse of discretion unless “no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Wilson v. Robinson, 917 So.2d 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Bottom line, figure your client has only one real shot in this type of case. Don't count on an appellate court second guessing your judge.

Family Preference in Guardianship Proceedings:

Once your client realizes that yes, what your probate judge thinks really matters, and no, an appeal is probably not a good idea, then hopefully everyone will focus on what's most important: the ward's best interests. It doesn't matter if your client is related to the ward [click here] or if the ward executed a pre-need guardian declaration naming your client his or her guardian [click here], if the judge decides it's in the ward's best interests to appoint someone else as guardian, that's probably the end of the story. Here's how the 4th DCA made this point:

Under [F.S. § 744.312], “a person who is related by blood or marriage to the ward” does receive preference in appointment; however, the inquiry does not end there. The court also has the discretion to give preference to a non-relative who possesses particular experience or ability to serve as guardian. See, e.g., Treloar v. Smith, 791 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (finding that while next of kin are given first consideration, statute does not mandatorily require that such an appointment be made; rather, statute specifically provides that court may appoint any person who is qualified, whether related to the ward or not). Moreover, it is the best interest of the ward that trumps other considerations in the appointment of a guardian. See, e.g., In re Guardianship of Stephens, 965 So.2d at 852 (“The best interests of the Ward-which include choosing a qualified guardian for the Ward-come first. Family member preference in and of itself is secondary, regardless of how well qualified the family members are.”).

In this case, Morris and Glinton argue that they are better fit than Knight to serve Barker's interests because they plan to move her to a better nursing home. Even setting aside the trial court's finding that both Morris and Glinton are unfit to become Barker's guardian, they have not demonstrated how simply moving Barker from one facility to another would best serve her interests. Morris and Glinton have maintained minimal involvement in Barker's care, whether family or not, and they are not now in the position to serve Barker's best interests, whether family or not. It is thus our view that the trial court was reasonable in concluding that Barker's care and interests would be best left up to Knight. See In re Guardianship of Stephens, 965 So.2d 847, 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (finding that as long as the record contained competent evidence to support the trial court's decision to appoint a non-relative as guardian, there is no abuse of discretion).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Texas probate litigator J. Michael Young wrote here on his Texas Probate Litigation Blog about a recently published AARP research piece entitled Power of Attorney Abuse: What States Can Do About It. Here's an excerpt:

The primary goal of this report is to inform state legislators, policymakers, practitioners, and advocates about the [Uniform Power of Attorney Act (UPOAA), click here]. provisions that protect against POA abuse and promote autonomy, and to support enactment efforts within the states. The secondary goal is to offer legal professionals information about their own state's law and the laws of other states. The latter information may foster inclusion of additional protections in the POA those professionals draft for clients, as well as inform advocacy efforts by the-state bar association or other organizations.

Toward those goals, this report highlights the problem of PO A abuse, explains why the UPOAA was developed, and identifies and discusses the UPOAA provisions related to protecting against POA abuse and promoting autonomy. It provides a series of charts that compare the state POA laws in effect on December 31, 2007, to each relevant provision of the UPOAA, as well as a master chart for all provisions. Finally, the report's appendixes include tips for advocates who desire to promote adoption of the UPOAA provisions in their state, a document titled "Why States Should Adopt the Uniform Power of Attorney Act (2006)," and a chart of citations to state POA laws.

Last year the UPOAA reporter, Prof. Linda Whitton of Valparaiso University - Law School, published an excellent article discussing the perceived shortcomings of current power-of-attorney statutes and how the UPOAA addresses those issues. Entitled The New Uniform Power of Attorney Act: Balancing Protection of the Principal, the Agent, and Third Persons, it's another solid resource for anyone working on a particularly thorny power-of-attorney matter.

Why read this stuff? Issue spotting, issue spotting, issue spotting . . .

It doesn't matter if you're an estate planner or probate litigator, spotting the issues most relevant to your client's interests is how we really add value as lawyers. The linked-to materials highlight the planning and litigation issues to think about in connection with powers of attorney, be it up front in the planning stage or at the back end when fraud or abuse is detected.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Estate of Shefner v. Shefner-Holden, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 322153 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb 11, 2009)

When is probate litigation a compensable "service" to the estate?

There were two issues at play in the linked-to opinion. One was whether the PR's were entitled to payment of their attorneys fees after successfully defending against a claim that F.S. 732.802 (Florida's Slayer Statute) precluded them from inheriting under their father's will because they assisted in his suicide. (By the way, I previously wrote here about a similar assisted-suicide/Slayer Statute case out of Wisconsin . . . the plaintiffs lost that one too.)

As is always the case in this type of fee dispute, the question was whether this litigation "rendered services" to the estate [click here]. According to the 3d DCA the answer was . . . yes. Here's why:

In probate matters, section 733.106, Florida Statutes (2003), controls the question of attorney's fees. Subsection (3) states: “Any attorney who has rendered services to an estate may be awarded reasonable compensation from the estate.” An attorney may render services to an estate by: (1) bringing about an enhancement in value or an increase in estate assets, or (2) actions which establish and effectuate the decedent's testamentary intent. See, e.g., Estate of Brock v. Brock, 695 So.2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Segal v. Levine, 489 So.2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); In re Estate of Lewis, 442 So.2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

.  .  .  .  .

[A]s a result of Deborah and Frank's defense of the Slayer Statute claim, the terms of the decedent's will were upheld. Thus, under section 733.106(3), Deborah and Frank are entitled to reimbursement of the attorney's fees and expenses for defending the claim. We, therefore, reverse the order denying attorney's fees. 

But can you dip into the homestead sales proceeds to pay the lawyers?

The second issue decided by the 3d DCA was whether the following clause in the decedent's will was the equivalent of a direction that the homestead property be sold and distributed to his heirs (thus stripping the sales proceeds of their creditor-protected status) or a devise of homestead property that was subsequently sold (thus preserving the creditor-protected status of the sales proceeds):

“I give my son, FRANK SHEFNER, JR. my house at 3420 SW 2nd Street, Miami, Florida. If and when the house is sold by my son, he will divide the proceeds equally among my children. My son is not to be forced to sell the house against his will.”

According to the 3d DCA, this was a devise of homestead property, so when Frank subsequently sold the house and split the proceeds with his siblings, the funds retained their creditor-protected status and were thus NOT subject to court ordered payment of probate-related attorneys fees.

It is well settled that homestead property devised to an heir is protected from forced sale to pay creditors' claims of the decedent and administrative expenses of the estate under Article X, Section 4 of Florida's Constitution. See, e.g., Pub. Health Trust of Dade County v. Lopez, 531 So.2d 946 (Fla.1988); Engelke v. Engelke, 921 So.2d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Thompson v. Laney, 766 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Heirs are those persons entitled to receive property under the laws of intestacy. §§ 731.201(18), 732.103(1), Fla. Stat. (2003); Snyder v. Davis, 699 So.2d 999, 1003 (Fla.1997). Thus, when devised to a qualified heir, decedent's homestead property is not distributed as part of the decedent's estate, and passes directly to the designated heir. See McKean v. Warburton, 919 So.2d 341, 347 (Fla.2005); Estate of Hamel v. Parker, 821 So.2d 1276, 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

The heir's sale of the property, after the decedent's death, does not change the legal consequences of the bequest from the decedent to the heir. After the decedent's death, the heir has legal ownership of the property, and he or she may sell it without regard to decedent's creditors or administrative expenses. See Thompson, 766 So.2d at 1088 (concluding that heir, to whom decedent's residence was devised, “was entitled to sell the homestead property ... and keep the proceeds of the sale); Estate of Tudhope v. Rudkin, 595 So.2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that proceeds derived from sale of decedent's homestead property directly devised to decedent's minor children could not be reached by decedent's creditors).

When a testator directs that his or her homestead be sold and the proceeds distributed to devisees, the property loses its constitutional protection. In such cases, the decedent is devising money, not homestead property, and the proceeds may be subject to the claims of decedent's creditors and administrative expenses. Knadle v. Estate of Knadle, 686 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (finding that because decedent specifically directed that her homestead be sold and distributed as part of her residue estate, proceeds became subject to the claim of decedent's creditor); Elmowitz v. Estate of Zimmerman, 647 So.2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (stating that homestead property devised to trust in favor of decedent's sister and two sons “lost its homestead status and became merely another asset of the trust”).

Here, Frank is a qualified heir, and the decedent's will directed that Frank not be forced to sell the house. Therefore, the homestead property passed directly to Frank, and never became a part of decedent's probate estate. Because the property was not a part of decedent's probate estate, the trial court properly concluded that the proceeds from the subsequent sale of the property could not be used to pay creditors' claims or administrative expenses of the estate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Crescenze v. Bothe, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 284858 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb 04, 2009)

Trust beneficiaries can avoid being sidelined in litigation involving their trusts by moving to "intervene" in the case under Civ.P. Rule 1.230. Here's what the rule says:

Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion.

As I've previously written, if a trust beneficiary doesn't intervene in the case he or she will probably be stuck with the outcome [click here].

In the linked-to case the trust beneficiary did exactly what she was supposed to do, she filed a motion seeking to intervene in litigation involving her trust. The probate court denied her motion based on what most of us would say was an "unorthodox" reading of Florida's probate code (proving once again that no matter how right you may be on the law, you can never predict with absolute certainty what will happen once you step through those courtroom doors). Here's how the 2d DCA explained its rationale for reversing the probate court's order:

On appeal, Crescenze argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to intervene. We agree. Crescenze is a beneficiary of the trust, and “Florida has long followed the rule that the beneficiaries of a trust are indispensable parties to a suit having the termination of the beneficiaries' interest as its ultimate goal.” Fulmer v. N. Cent. Bank, 386 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (citing Byers v. Beddow, 142 So. 894, 896 (Fla.1932), which held that a court called upon “to dissolve or terminate a trust ... must decline to act when there are, or may be, persons interested in the trust who are not before the court”). “Indispensable parties are necessary parties so essential to a suit that no final decision can be rendered without their joinder.” Sudhoff v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, 942 So.2d 425, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Because Crescenze is a beneficiary of the trust and therefore an indispensable party to the action seeking to terminate or revoke the trust, we reverse the circuit court's order denying Crescenze's motion to intervene and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The circuit court concluded that Crescenze's request to intervene was barred because it was not filed prior to the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations set forth in section 733.710(1), Florida Statutes (2005). However, it is clear from the language of the statute and its place in chapter 733 of the Probate Code that section 733.710(1) applies exclusively to claims against an estate in a probate proceeding and has no application in a civil action to terminate a trust. See also Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Trawick's Redfearn Wills and Administration in Florida § 2:11 (2008-09 ed.) (recognizing that “[s]everal statutes of limitation apply only to probate matters” and discussing section 733.710).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hays v. Lawrence, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 211048 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan 30, 2009)

The probate bar has been mulling over the question of if, when and how Civ. Pro. Rule 1.525, the rule setting a 30-day post-judgment deadline for filing fee motions in civil litigation, applies to contested probate and trust proceedings.  This is an important issue; the last thing any lawyer wants to do is blow past a deadline for claiming fees on behalf of his client. Here's what the rule says:

Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal.

Then a few months ago comes the Donkersloot opinion, a case out of the 2d DCA implying that Civ. Pro. Rule 1.525 applies to trust litigation (this was a first).  In the context of writing about that case I also linked to the excellent work being done by a subcommittee of the RPPTL section looking at possible statutory fixes [click here].

Then the Winter 2009 edition of ActionLine contained an article by Jon Scuderi, Esq., Goldman, Felcoski & Stone P.A., Naples, FL and Rebecca Y. Zung-Clough, Esq., Wealth Strategist, Northern Trust, NA, Naples FL, entitled Does Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 Apply to Probate and Trust Proceedings? Their conclusion: YES!

And now, in the linked-to case above, the 5th DCA has weighed in on whether Civ. Pro. Rule 1.525 applies to adversary probate proceedings. Their conclusion: YES!  Here's an excerpt:

Appellants filed a petition for administration, claiming, in part, that a handwritten document dated August 13, 1978, was the last will of James Douglas Lawrence. Appellants' petition requested that the court admit the handwritten document to probate and appoint them as personal representatives of Lawrence's estate. On the same day, Appellants filed a declaration that the proceeding was adversary. After a trial was held on the petition in accordance with Florida Probate Rule 5.025, the court issued a final order denying Appellants' petition for administration and refusing to admit the handwritten document to probate. Appellants appealed the decision to this Court, which ultimately dismissed the appeal on March 1, 2007.

On March 29, 2007, Appellants' attorneys filed a petition for order authorizing the payment of attorney's fees and expenses pursuant to section 733.106(2), Florida Statutes (2007). Appellees moved to strike the petition, arguing, in part, that the petition for fees and costs was untimely because it was filed seven months after the final order was entered instead of within thirty days as required by rule 1.525. The trial court granted the motion to strike.

The central issue framed by the parties is whether the rules of civil procedure applied to the proceeding below. The resolution of this issue turns on whether the underlying dispute in probate court was an adversary proceeding. In a probate action, if the case is determined to be an adversary proceeding, it “shall be conducted similar to suits of a civil nature and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern, including entry of defaults.” Fla. Prob. R. 5.025(d)(2). Notwithstanding Appellants' prior declaration that the dispute was adversary, they urge that it was not. We disagree. See Fla. Prob. R. 5.025(b) (proceedings are adversary if declared as such).

Contrary to Appellant's argument, In re Estate of Beeman, 391 So.2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), is distinguished. There, our sister court addressed the issue of whether the rules of civil procedure applied in a probate proceeding to determine fees of counsel for the estate. In ruling that the civil rules did not apply, the Beeman court emphasized that the proceeding below had not been “designated” an adversary proceeding. We think this finding distinguishes Beeman from this case. Here, the proceeding was declared as an adversary proceeding to determine the validity of the purported will and tried as such. Under these circumstances, the rules of civil procedure, and specifically, rule 1.525 were applicable. Therefore, the motion was not timely.
 

Lesson learned:

If anyone was hoping this trap-for-the-unwary would just go away, forget about it. Now that we have a couple of appellate decisions plus an ActionLine article plus the RPPTL section all talking about how Civ. Pro. Rule 1.525 applies to "adversary" probate proceedings and trust litigation, you need to assume everyone's heard of this issue by now and will be more than happy to spring this trap on you if you blow the 30-day deadline to file your motion for fees. You've been warned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Belanger v. Salvation Army, 2009 WL 223884 (11th Cir.(Fla.) Feb 02, 2009) [Attorney Interview]

The Salvation Army has been enmeshed in litigation since 2007 over approximately $105,000 it received from a pay-on-death account [click here]. At issue was whether a corporation, such as the Salvation Army, could be the beneficiary of a pay-on-death bank account under Florida law. According to the trial court and now the 11th Circuit, the answer is "yes." The following excerpt from the 11th Circuit opinion does a good job of framing the issue and explaining the court's statutory-construction ruling:

Richard Jason Belanger, as son and personal representative of the Estate of Richard Jose Belanger, deceased, brought this diversity action against The Salvation Army to recover funds which The Salvation Army had obtained from a pay-on-death bank account established in the name of “Richard J. Belanger, In Trust For The Salvation Army.” The Estate argues that The Salvation Army, a corporation, cannot be considered a “surviving beneficiary” under the pay-on-death account provisions of section 655.82, Florida Statutes. The district court granted a motion to dismiss in favor of The Salvation Army, finding that a corporation can be a beneficiary of a pay-on-death bank account under Florida law. The Estate appeals.

This case presents an issue of first impression: whether a corporation qualifies as a “person” permitted to be a lawful beneficiary of a pay-on-death account under section 655.82 of the Florida Statutes. We, therefore, must form a reasoned opinion as to how this statute should be interpreted. We determine that the plain language of section 655.82 permits a corporation to be a beneficiary of a pay-on-death account because the definition of the term “person” in section 1.01(3) of the Florida Statutes includes corporations. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in greater detail below, we affirm.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Taylor v. Taylor, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 186155 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan 28, 2009) [Attorney Interview]

I wrote here in 2006 about an "ambiguous" premarital agreement that the 3d DCA held was a valid waiver of a widow's marital rights under F.S. § 732.702. Here's the clause at the center of the 3d DCA case:

"It is [husband's] intent that, in the event of his death, all of his separate property be given to his children, STEVEN M. LADD and BETHANY S. LADD, or as otherwise provided for in his Last Will and Testament."

In that case the court relied on evidence outside of the four corners of the agreement as the basis for enforcement. In other words, the 3d DCA held this clause was NOT precise enough on its own to effectuate a waiver of spousal rights under F.S. § 732.702, so the probate court was right to accept parol evidence when enforcing it.

Fast forward to the present and the linked-to opinion out of the 1st DCA. Here's the waiver clause at the center of the new case:

"All property which belongs to each of the above parties shall be, and shall forever remain, their personal estate, including all interest, rents, and profits which may accrue from said property, and said property shall remain forever free of claim by the other."

According to the 1st DCA this clause was just fine, thank you very much. No ambiguity here. In fact the 1st DCA goes out of its way to let the probate court know that it should NOT have taken parol evidence to "decipher" its meaning. Here's how the 1st DCA explains its ruling upholding this clause on the grounds that under F.S. § 732.702 a contract's broadly-stated intention to waive spousal rights in whatever form they may take is sufficient:

Application of section 732.702(1) leads us to conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the prenuptial agreement was ambiguous as to Appellee's rights in the decedent's estate. Section 732.702(1) does not require that the parties specify an intent to relinquish rights given to surviving spouses in order to effectively relinquish those rights. Instead, the statute provides that a general relinquishment of “all rights” or equivalent language is sufficient to accomplish this purpose. Here, Appellee agreed, under paragraph one, that after marriage, the decedent's property would “forever remain [his] personal estate” and that such property would be “forever free of any claim by [Appellee].” Because this language is equivalent to a statement that Appellee waived “all rights” in the decedent's property or estate, section 732.702(1) compels a conclusion that the prenuptial agreement was a valid waiver of those rights.

Lesson learned?

I think it's impossible to reconcile the different approaches taken first by the 3d DCA in 2006 and then by the 1st DCA above when applying F.S. § 732.702 to what all of us can agree are less than artfully drafted prenuptial agreements. So what's a probate litigator to do? Cover all your bases. How? Argue in the alternative: build a record that wins your client's case based both on parol evidence (à la the 3d DCA's approach in 2006) and on the text of the agreement itself (à la the 1st DCA's approach in the linked-to case above). Either way, you're ready, willing and able to win your case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Winter 2009 edition of ActionLine contains a short article entitled The Cutler En Banc Opinion: Is the Third DCA Eroding the Protection Afforded to Heirs Who Are to Receive Devises of Florida Homestead? by Melbourne probate attorney Charlie Nash. Charlie's article does a good job of dissecting the 3d DCA's opinion in the Cutler case, which addressed the interplay between the creditor protections applicable to otherwise freely-devisable homestead property in Florida. I previously wrote about the Cutler opinion here.

Lesson learned?

Just because you're dealing with "freely devisable" homestead property doesn't mean you're home free. As made clear by the Cutler decision and Charlie's article, as well as other recent appellate decisions I've written about involving freely-devisable homestead property [click here, here, here], the unintended consequences can blow up even the most carefully crafted estate plan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A "QTIP trust" allows a person's estate to receive a 100% estate-tax marital deduction for assets left in trust for a surviving spouse for life, with the remainder of the trust assets going to the settlor's children (or other heirs) once the surviving spouse passes away [click here].  A common source of trust litigation is the hostility often existing between children of a first marriage and the step-parent who becomes the life-time beneficiary of the QTIP trust.

One very effective long-term solution for this type of litigation is to permanently separate the warring factions by simply terminating the QTIP trust and dividing the assets between the life-time beneficiary (surviving step-mother) and the remainder beneficiaries (children of dad's first marriage).  Sounds simple, but the tax and trust-law issues triggered by this split can be extremely complex.  There are two recently-published resources that provide a solid starting point for trusts-and-estates lawyers looking to get their arms around QTIP splits.

First, I recently wrote about creative lawyering by Florida attorneys working through a QTIP trust split/termination and related IRS Private Letter Ruling 200844010, in which the IRS outlined the operative tax issues and blessed the tax results the parties were attempting to achieve in their settlement agreement [click here].

Second, in a follow-up to his blog entry discussing the QTIP-termination PLR [click here], Florida tax attorney/blogger Charles Rubin, of Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin Forman Fleisher P.A., recently published an article entitled Tax Results of Settling Disputes Involving QTIP Trusts.  Mr. Rubin's article does an excellent job of expanding on the tax issues reflected in IRS Private Letter Ruling 200844010 and pointing out all the other potential traps for lawyers involved in similar cases.

Presto!  You're now a QTIP trust termination expert.

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

Five Points Health Care, Ltd. v. Mallory, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 5411834 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec 31, 2008)

Under Florida law an attorney-in-fact's authority is limited solely to actions "specifically enumerated in the durable power of attorney." F.S. 709.08(7)(a). Sounds simple enough. But the question courts have to grapple with is how specific does the enumerated grant of authority in the durable power of attorney (DPOA) have to be?

With respect to arbitration agreements, the 2d DCA has recently come out at both ends of the spectrum. In January of 2008 the 2d DCA ruled in In re Estate of McKibbin that a specific reference to the arbitration agreement in the DPOA was needed. Having apparently experienced a change of heart, a few months later in September of 2008 the 2d DCA basically reversed itself, ruling in Jaylene, Inc. v. Moots that a general grant of authority in the DPOA was all you need.

My guess is that most Florida appellate courts will err on the side of enforcing arbitration agreements whenever they can. So I expect they'll enforce arbitration agreements executed under broadly-stated grants of authority in DPOA's more often than not. And that's exactly what happened in the linked-to opinion.

In the linked-to opinion the 1st DCA described the key provisions of the contested DPOA as follows:

The nursing home admission agreement which contained the arbitration clause was signed by Carlene Mallory under the durable power of attorney (POA) granted her by her mother. The “Durable Power of Attorney” signed by Alfreda Mallory a year before she was admitted to the nursing home stated, in part:

All acts done by my attorney-in-fact pursuant to this power shall bind me, my heirs, devisees and personal representatives; provided, however, that all such acts performed hereunder shall be for my benefit only and not for the benefit of my attorney-in-fact.

The POA listed seventeen paragraphs specifying the powers of the attorney-in-fact, one of which stated that the attorney-in-fact was authorized to: “Prosecute, defend and settle all actions or other legal proceeding touching my estate or any part of it or touching any matter in which I may be concerned in any way.” The seventeenth paragraph authorized the attorney-in-fact to: “Do anything regarding my estate, property and affairs that I could do for myself.” 

Based on the foregoing, and relying in part on the 2d DCA's McKibbin decision, the trial court ruled that because the DPOA didn't contain a specific reference to arbitration agreements, the contested arbitration clause was unenforceable.  The 1st DCA reversed, basing its analysis on the less stringent standard applied in the 2d DCA's Jaylene opinion:

[W]e find persuasive Jaylene, Inc. v. Moots, 2008 WL 4181140 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 12, 2008), in which the Second District Court of Appeal declined to follow its prior opinion in McKibbin, noting that “the opinion in McKibbin does not set forth the language of the power of attorney under review in that case” and “is not controlling here where the POA unambiguously makes a broad, general grant of authority to the attorney-in-fact.” Id. at p. 3. In Jaylene, the court reversed an order denying a motion to compel arbitration in circumstances similar to the case at issue.

.  .  .  .  .

We note that the trial court did not have the benefit of the opinion in Jaylene when it entered its order. Nevertheless, we find the reasoning in that opinion persuasive, and we find that the POA at issue is sufficiently similar to the POA at issue in that case to warrant application of that reasoning to the case at issue.

The order denying the motion to compel arbitration is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

Lesson learned?

I have no doubt that the specific context of this case and others addressing the enforceability of arbitration agreements signed by attorneys-in-fact operating under DPOA's is significant. Which means you need to be careful when looking to these opinions in the types of cases probate lawyers usually run into as part of their practice: DPOA's being used to change estate planning documents [click here] or change life-insurance beneficiary designation forms [click here, here] or otherwise defraud elderly clients [click here]. In those cases I expect you'll find appellate courts will demand a much higher level of specificity in terms of the authority granted under the DPOA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sandra O'Neill v. Scher, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 5352183 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec 24, 2008)

In the linked-to opinion the parties executed a settlement agreement supposedly putting an end to their litigation involving contested probate claims. The settlement agreement contained the following release language:

3. Sandra O'Neill hereby releases any present and/or future interest which she may have in and to the following:

a. The Estate of Benjamin Scher opened in Miami-Dade County, Florida, under case number 06-0057 CP (04);

b. The Benjamin Scher Revocable Inter Vivos Trust dated 8/30/01, as amended and restated on 8/11/04, and/or any successor trust created through said trust, including but not limited to Marital Trust, Credit Shelter Trust, and Trust for the Benefit of Cassandra O'Neill;

c. Benjamin Scher Irrevocable Trust dated 9/1/99;

d. Any interest claim or expectancy of an inheritance from or against the Estate of Sophie Scher, including but not limited to any testamentary documents executed by Sophie Scher.

e. The Sophie Scher Revocable Inter Vivos Trust dated 8/30/01, as amended and re-stated on 8/9/05.

f. Any interest claim or expectancy of an inheritance from or against the Estate of Richard Scher, including but not limited to any testamentary documents executed by Richard Scher.

4. It is understood that this agreement is a memorial of the terms of the within settlement. However, the parties hereby agree to execute formal releases in accordance with the terms set forth herein.

Almost immediately after executing their settlement agreement the parties were back in court. One of the issues in dispute was whether the text quoted above should be limited to its own terms or read broadly to encompass a universal general release.  The probate judge sided with the general-release argument and ended up getting reversed on appeal for the following reasons:

We reverse .  .  .  that portion of the trial court's order instructing O'Neill to execute the “general release” forwarded to her by Scher's counsel. As counsel for Scher conceded at oral argument, the release that the trial court ordered O'Neill to execute is overly broad and does not accurately reflect the release of interests and/or claims to which O'Neill agreed in the settlement agreement. Indeed, O'Neill only agreed in paragraph 3 of the Memorandum of Settlement to release six specific present and/or future interests. The general release, on the other hand, contains broad provisions releasing O'Neill's present and/or future claims for matters, persons, and entities not listed or considered in the settlement agreement.FN2 On remand, the parties shall draft a release concerning only those six specific claims contained in paragraph 3 of the Memorandum of Settlement, and shall release no other present and/or future claims.

FN2. We also note that the general release, which the trial court ordered O'Neill to execute, disposed of the interests of O'Neill's “heirs, executors, and administrators.” Paragraph 3 of the Memorandum of Settlement, however, contains no such language and, on remand, the release presented to O'Neill for execution shall contain no such language.

Lesson learned:

First, if your client bargained for a general release, then write it into the deal or attach it to your contract as a stand-alone exhibit. As I've written before, you don't want to rely on a court to fill this gap for you [click here].  Second, if you're dealing with an especially litigious antagonist, you'll be sorry if you leave any room for future attacks. Click here for an example of a settlement agreement that worked precisely because all future avenues of attack were anticipated and explicitly cut off by the express terms of the parties' settlement agreement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

Klingensmith v. Ferd and Gladys Alpert Jewish Family of Palm Beach County, Inc., --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4922917 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov 19, 2008)

In probate proceedings your standing to participate in any aspect of the administration of the estate depends on whether or not you're an "interested person" of the estate, as that term is defined by F.S. 731.201(23). So I see motion practice in probate aimed at cutting a party out of a contested proceeding based on the party not being an interested person of the estate as analogous to a motion to dismiss for lack of standing in general civil litigation.

The denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing is NOT an appealable order. It's not a final order, and it's not listed as an appealable non-final order in Rule 9.130(a). See Supal v. Pelot, 469 So.2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (recognizing that an order denying a motion to dismiss based on a lack of standing is not an appealable nonfinal order). So I wasn't surprised when the 4th DCA held that a denial of a motion to strike a petition for administration based on the petitioner NOT being an interested person of the estate is NOT a final order and is therefore NOT an appealable order. Here's how the 4th DCA explained its ruling:

In its initial brief, Klingensmith relies on Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2) and its committee note as authorization for this appeal. “Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2) authorizes appellate review ‘of orders entered in probate ... matters that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code.’ “ Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So.2d 1272, 1273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (omission in original). The committee note states: “An order of the circuit court that determines a right, an obligation, or the standing of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code may be appealed before the administration of the probate or guardianship is complete and the fiduciary is discharged.” Rule 9.110(a)(2), Fla. R.App. P. cmt. Klingensmith suggests that the court's finding that AJFCS had standing to “file” the petition is in essence a finding that AJFCS is an interested person under the probate code. We disagree.

Significantly, the committee note explains that the 1996 amendment to the rule “does not abrogate prior case law holding that a party's right of appeal arises when there is a termination of judicial labor on the issue involved as to that party.” Walters v. Edwards, 700 So.2d 434, 435 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In fact, the amendment “has been viewed as strengthening the requirement of finality.” Delgado v. Estate of Garriga, 870 So.2d 912, 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

Here, the trial court did not finally determine whether AJFCS was an interested person and therefore able to petition for administration. Rather, the trial court found only that AJFCS had standing to “file” a petition for administration. The order on appeal does not therefore put an end to all judicial labor on the issue of whether AJFCS is an interested person under the Probate Code. It is not final and we are without jurisdiction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Barash v. Kates, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2008 WL 4922787 (S.D.Fla. Jun 25, 2008)

Serial litigation by vexatious litigants in trusts-and-estates proceedings and how courts go about dealing with them has been a frequent topic on this blog [click here, here, here]. The take-away from these cases is: [1] if your client is on the receiving end of lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit by an abusive litigant, counsel patience: courts will bend over backwards to accommodate litigants whose conduct is far outside the bounds of acceptable behavior for very long periods of time prior to taking action to stop future abuses; and [2] you don't have to put up with this garbage forever, there is a tipping point, and once you've reached it, courts do have the authority to tailor appropriate protective measures.

The linked-to case is helpful because it delivers on three fronts:

• it provides yet another concrete example of how bad things have to get before a court will step in and take action against an abusive litigant continuously filing new lawsuits against your client [i.e., these facts help you manage your client's expectations];
• it summarizes the law you'll need to cite if you're ever confronted with a vexatious litigant whose making your life and the life of your client miserable; and
• it gives you an example of the type of protective order you'll want entered to stop the madness.

The Facts:

You'll have to read the opinion for all the details, but note that the plaintiff whose conduct is the subject of the linked-to order had been litigating against the defendants over inheritance issues for over seven years (since 2001) in both state and federal courts in Florida, Colorado and New York. Again, the point to take away here is that you'll probably have to put up with years of abuse before a court will enter a protective order against future vexatious litigation (that doesn't mean you can't ask for sanctions as soon as the other side goes crazy on you).

The Law:

Here's how Judge Hopkins summarized the law in the 11th circuit regarding a court's inherent authority to curb future abuses by vexatious litigants:

The 11th Circuit has long recognized the court's ability to protect itself from abusive litigants. See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1071-1074 (11th Cir.1986) (en banc) (affirming in part order of district court enjoining pro se litigant from filing any cases unless represented by counsel). See also United States v. Hintz, 229 Fed. App'x 860, 861 (11th Cir.2007) (citing Procup, 792 F.2d at 1073-1074). The Court has also stated that district courts have the authority to impose “serious restrictions” on a litigant's ability to bring matters to court without an attorney. See Procup, 792 F.2d at 1070. “Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions.” Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1386-1387 (11th Cir.1993) (quoting Procup, 792 F.2d 1069)). As a result, “considerable discretion is necessarily reposed in the district court” to draft orders enjoining abusive litigation tactics. See Martin-Trigona, 986 F.2d at 1387 ( citing Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074). See also May v. Hatter, No. 00-4115-Civ-Moore, 2001 WL 579782, *4 (S.D.Fla. May 15, 2001) (quoting Martin-Trigona, 986 F.2d at 1387) (citing Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074). Such orders may be appropriate to protect both the courts and its staff, as well as the rights of all litigants in the federal system. See Procup, 792 F.2d at 1071-1072 (noting that the claims of all other litigants suffer when a single litigant files “upwards of a lawsuit a day,” and that every lawsuit filed, no matter how frivolous or repetitious, requires the investment of court time, whether the pleadings are reviewed by a law clerk, staff attorney, magistrate, or judge).

Courts can be creative in fashioning appropriate injunctions against abusive litigation tactics. See Procup, 792 F.2d at 1072-1073. See also Hintz, 229 Fed. App'x at 861 (citing Procup, 792 F.2d at 1073-1074). For example, courts have entered orders which (1) enjoin “prisoner litigants from relitigating specific claims or claims arising from the same set of factual circumstances;” (2) require “litigants to accompany all future pleadings with affidavits certifying that the claims being raised are novel, subject to contempt for false swearing;” and, (3) direct “the litigant to seek leave of court before filing pleadings in any new or pending lawsuit.” Procup, 792 F.2d at 1072-1073) (citations omitted; other examples of court orders omitted). See also Hintz, 229 Fed. App'x at 861 (noting that the court has approved order limiting further pleadings without order of the court, after the complaint has been filed); Martin-Trigona, 986 F.2d at 1387 (noting that the Eleventh Circuit “has upheld pre-filing screening restrictions on litigious plaintiffs.”) (citing Copeland v. Green, 949 F.2d 390 (11th Cir.1991); Cofield v. Alabama Public Serv. Comm., 936 F.2d 512, 517-18 (11th Cir.1991)).

Moreover, courts may enjoin not only the abusive litigant, but also those working in concert with them, or at the behest of the litigant. See Martin-Trigona, 986 F.2d at 1287-1389 (affirming order of district court which applied equally to Martin-Trigona and “persons or entities acting at his behest, at his direction or instigation, or in concert with him.”) The only limitation on the court's discretion to enjoin abusive litigation is that courts are not permitted to completely bar all access to the courts. See Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074. Should an injunction be entered, abusive litigants may be sanctioned for violating the injunction. See Martin-Trigona, 986 F.2d at 1389 (affirming order dismissing lawsuit filed by the mother of Martin-Trigona, because the mother acted in concert with her son to violate previous court order); May, 2001 WL 579782 at *5 (dismissing lawsuit with prejudice after abusive litigant violated injunction three times) (citing World Thrust Films, Inc. v. Int'l Family Enter., Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456 (11th Cir.1995)).

The Remedy:

Here's the remedy granted by Judge Hopkins. Note that this type of remedy is typical: it doesn't close the courtroom doors to the abusive litigant, but it does make the litigant jump through a series of hoops prior to granting him future access to the court system. If you read the case you'll also note that this remedy is being granted in addition to personal sanctions being entered against the abusive litigant.

1.) Philip Barash is ORDERED to cease filing any further pleadings unless Ordered by this Court, or unless prior approval is obtained by this Court.

2.) In order to obtain court approval to file any pleading, Philip Barash is ORDERED to abide by the following procedure. Failure to follow such procedure may result in the dismissal, striking, or denial of the Motion or offending pleading, or other sanctions.

First, Barash shall file with the Court a “Motion for Court Approval to File Pleading,” wherein he shall (a) state that he seeks the Court's approval to file a particular pleading; (b) explain the legal purpose or basis of the pleading; and, (3) describe the nature of the pleading with specificity.

Second, Barash shall attach as a clearly labeled exhibit to the “Motion for Court Approval to File Pleading” the pleading he seeks to file.

Third, the filing of any “Motion for Court Approval to File Pleading” shall also comply with all aspects of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida (including service on Defendant, the submission of motions only to the Clerk of Court, and no direct correspondence to Chambers).

3.) This Order shall apply to Barash and anyone working in concert with him, at his direction, or at his behest, including, but not limited to his wife Sandra, or any other family members, friends, associates, or acquaintances.

4.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant Kates need not respond to any of Barash's filings which may be filed subsequent to this Order, unless Ordered by this Court.

5.) Any violations of this Order may result in sanctions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Whether certain probate-related orders are or are not subject to appeal is a topic that comes up with some frequency on this blog [click here]. In an effort to add greater certainty to this area of the law, the Probate and Trust Litigation Committee has been working on an appellate rule project. Click here for the latest draft of the proposed appellate rule which is making its way through the appellate rules committee. The current proposal gives probate orders their own separate rule similar to family law orders. If you have any comments to this latest draft, please forward them directly to the sub-committee members working on this important project: Bill Hennessey, Tom Karr, and Sean Kelley.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Veteran Florida probate litigator Amy Beller was kind enough to direct me to Private Letter Ruling 200844010, in which the IRS ruled that if you split a single marital trust into five separate sub-trusts and then terminate just one of those sub-trusts, IRC § 2519 would be triggered only with respect to the terminated sub-trust. The significance of this PLR is that it provides an excellent summary of the transfer-tax consequences you need to both anticipate and deal with any time you terminate a marital trust that's been QTIP'd, while also explaining how to manage those tax issues by elegantly leveraging the flexibility built into Florida's new Trust Code.

Here's a key excerpt from the linked-to PLR:

In the present case, Spouse has a qualifying income interest for life in Marital Trust, and Child 1, Child 2, Child 3, Child 4, and Child 5 are the presumptive remainder beneficiaries. Pursuant to Settlement Agreement, Marital Trust will be divided into five trusts: specifically, four Surviving Settlement Trusts and Child 1’s Settlement Trust. Under State Statute 1, each of the five trusts will be treated as a separate trust for all purposes from the date on which the severance is effective. After the division, Spouse will have a qualifying income interest for life, and Child 2, Child 3, Child 4, and Child 5 will be the remaindermen of the Surviving Settlement Trusts. Child 1’s Settlement Trust will be terminated. Accordingly, based on the facts submitted and representations made, we conclude that the division of Marital Trust into five trusts and the subsequent termination of Child 1’s Settlement Trust pursuant to Settlement Agreement will not be deemed to be a transfer under § 2519 of any property interest, or interest in, the Surviving Settlement Trusts, and therefore, such division and termination will not give rise to any gift tax liability with respect to any property of, or interest in, any of the Surviving Settlement Trusts.  

Amy represented the surviving spouse/income beneficiary of the marital trust, so she deserves a good amount of the credit for this PLR.  By the way, South Florida tax lawyer Charles Rubin also wrote about this PLR here on his blog Rubin on Tax.

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

Wintter & Associates, P.A. v. Kanowsky, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4643358 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 22, 2008)

If all you're asking a probate court to do is exercise its in rem jurisdiction over the assets of a trust by awarding you your attorney's fees from trust assets, then you don't have to plead this claim up front and can ask for these fees at any time by filing a motion under F.S. 736.1004.

On the other hand, if you're asking a probate court to reach into someone's pocket and make that person pay your fees with his own personal funds, that requires the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the target of your claim, which triggers an entirely different pleading regime governed by the requirements of Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla.1991). The different pleading requirements only make sense if you realize they rest on entirely different jurisdictional foundations: in rem v. in personam jurisdiction.

In the linked-to opinion the probate court ordered the trustee and its attorneys to personally pay for a trust beneficiary's legal fees arising out of a contested trust accounting proceeding. Based on the following surprisingly frank observation by the 4th DCA in footnote 2 of its opinion, I'm guessing the probate court's order wasn't exactly the picture of clarity:

FN2. We admit that we do not know on what legal basis fees were awarded to the beneficiary and against the law firm and trustee, nor does anything in the record elucidate this for us.

That's too bad, because I'm guessing the probate court entered its order on the assumption it was operating on the basis of its in rem jurisdiction over the trust's assets, and thus the hightened pleading requirements applicable to personal judgments simply didn't apply. Anyway, that's the clear implication of the probate court's order, and here's how the 4th DCA explained its rationale for reversal:

The law firm claims that the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees where they were not pled as required by Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla.1991), which held that a claim for attorneys fees, whether based on statute or contract, must be pled. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the claim. Id. at 837-38. The Stockman court based its decision on the need for appropriate notice and to prevent unfair surprise. Id. at 837. Further, the existence or non-existence of a motion for attorneys fees may play an important role in decisions whether to pursue a claim, dismiss it, or settle. Id. An exception to this rule applies [w]here a party has notice that an opponent claims entitlement to attorneys fees, and by its conduct recognizes or acquiesces to that claim or otherwise fails to object to the failure to plead entitlement,.... Id. at 838.

The exception to the Stockman rule does not apply, as neither the law firm nor the trustee waived its objection to the beneficiary's failure to plead entitlement to attorney's fees. The conduct of the law firm and trustee did not demonstrate acquiescence to the claim for fees. To the contrary, in the trustees own written closing argument the law firm objected to the request for attorneys fees on the grounds that it was not pled. At all times they objected to the assessment of attorneys fees.

Were these fees requested from the estate, Stockman might not apply. See In re Estate of Paris, 699 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). However, as noted, the beneficiary requested fees from the lawyer and trustee.

The beneficiary did not request attorney's fees in her objection to the final accounting. Admittedly her objection was not a pleading in the traditional sense, as it was not a complaint or answer. However, it was the first document she filed with the court in this action, and she did not request attorney's fees until her written closing argument. She requested fees not from the estate, but directly from the trustee and his attorney. Certainly, we think that the Stockman rationales of due process notice and prevention of surprise require her to reveal her intention to make such a claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Brindle v. Brindle, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4722746 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct 29, 2008)

Sometimes it pays to step back and review the basics, like the difference between in rem jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction in probate proceedings, or the finality of settlement agreements no matter what courtroom you happen to be in. Both issues come up with some frequency in contested probate proceedings, which is why I was happy to see them both addressed squarely in the linked-to opinion.

In Rem v. In Personam Jurisdiction:

When the personal representative of this estate realized he didn't have enough cash to pay his administrative expenses, he figured why not make his brother (a 50% beneficiary of the estate) pick up half the tab. Sounds reasonable, which is probably why the probate court went along with the idea. Wrong answer said the 3d DCA, and here's why:

We reverse the order on appeal for further proceedings. The administration of an estate in probate is an in rem proceeding. § 731.105, Fla. Stat. (2006); Hoffman v. Murphy ( In re Estate of Williamson), 95 So.2d 244 (Fla.1956). Beneficiaries are not ordinarily “parties” to the proceeding. Payette v. Clark, 559 So.2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also Sean Kelly & Shane Kelly, Litigation Under the Florida Probate Code § 1.29 (6th ed. 2006) (“Generally, in a probate administration, the personal representative is the only person over whom the court has in personam jurisdiction.”). Thus, absent consent or statutory authority, a probate court may not apportion the expenses of an estate among the beneficiaries of an estate personally. See Dayton v. Conger, 448 So.2d 609, 611-12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Dourado v. Chousa, 604 So.2d 864, 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); cf. § 733.106(3)-(4), Fla. Stat. (2006) (allowing, in proper circumstances, attorneys fees and costs to be awarded from interests in an estate). There is no agreement or statute applicable to this case by which a personal award of estate expenses against Richard and Charles can be sustained.FN1 The record in this case indicates the probate judge ordered Richard and Charles to split the expenses of the estate as a matter of convenience.

FN1. Although the circuit judge in the civil division had the authority to apportion the costs of that proceeding personally individually among the litigants, § 733.106(1), Fla. Stat. (2006); Dayton, 448 So.2d at 612, the parties, with the approval of the personal representative, resolved those costs in their settlement agreement.

Finality of Settlement Agreements:

No one's perfect, but it you cut a deal that goes south on you, most of us know you can't ask for a re-play. You suck it up and move on. Well that's not what happened in this case. In this case the probate court decided a settlement agreement signed by the litigants two years ago didn't make sense anymore, so the judge tweeked it a bit. Again, may have sounded like a reasonable "solomaic" solution to a dispute between two brothers disputing their mother's estate, but it was bad law, so says the 3d DCA:

Finally, neither division of the circuit court possessed the authority to set aside the terms of the settlement agreement for any purpose. The agreement had been approved and compliance ordered by the civil division of the circuit court almost two years before, with jurisdiction retained only “[as] necessary to enforce the Settlement Agreement.” All the facts pertaining to the existence and amount of the expenses needed to be paid by the estate were known or knowable to the personal representative when he embarked upon the distribution of estate assets-more than half to himself-pursuant to the settlement agreement. His argument that “it is no longer equitable that the [order] should have prospective application” within the meaning of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5) is not supported. See Hensel v. Hensel, 276 So.2d 227, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (“[T]he equities spoken of in ground No. 5 of [Rule 1.540(b) ] are those which come to fruition [a]fter a final judgment ....”); accord Baker v. Baker, 920 So.2d 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Gregory v. Connor, 591 So.2d 974, 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Brundage v. Bank of America, Trustee, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4722970 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 29, 2008)

Incapacitated Settlor of Revocable Trust:

Florida's Trust Code is clear, while a trust is revocable, the duties of the trustee are owed exclusively to the settlor [F.S. 736.0603]. Equally important, a trustee will not be held responsible for actions consented to by the settlor of a revocable trust [736.1012]. But what happens if the revocable trust's settlor becomes mentally incapacitated? That's the most interesting issue addressed in the linked-to opinion.

In this case the successor co-trustees of a revocable trust were sued by the trust's remainder beneficiaries following the settlor's death.  Prior to her death, a doctor had examined the settlor and concluded that she was not competent to manage her affairs.  The trial court dismissed the complaint against the successor trustees on the grounds that they didn't owe the remainder beneficiaries any duties during the settlor's life (which is when the alleged wrongful conduct took place). Wrong answer said the 4th DCA, for the following reason:

As settlor of her own revocable trust of which she was the sole beneficiary until her death, Dorothy reserved to herself the sole power to change beneficiaries or revoke her trust at any time. “[T]he beneficiaries of [the] trust other than [the settler] ... do not come into possession of any of the trust property until the event of [the settlor's] death, and even this interest is contingent upon her not exercising her power to revoke. Since she is the sole beneficiary of the trust during her lifetime, she has the absolute right to call the trust to an end and distribute the trust property in any way she wishes.” Fla. Nat'l Bank of Palm Beach County v. Genova, 460 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla.1984) (emphasis omitted). The interest of the Brundages did not vest until Dorothy's death. See In re Johnson's Estate, 397 So.2d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It follows that during the settlor/beneficiary's lifetime, a trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the settlor/beneficiary and not the remainder beneficiaries, who not only have no vested interest but whose contingent interest may be divested by the settlor prior to her death.

We have found no case which enforces on a trustee a duty owed to a contingent beneficiary of a revocable trust. However, once the interest of the contingent beneficiary vests upon the death of the settlor, the beneficiary may sue for breach of a duty that the trustee owed to the settlor/beneficiary which was breached during the lifetime of the settlor and subsequently affects the interest of the vested beneficiary. Smith v. Bank of Clearwater, 479 So.2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), illustrates this principle. In Smith the court held that a contingent remainderman of a trust, whose interest vested with the death of the lifetime beneficiary, had standing to sue for mismanagement of trust assets during the lifetime of the income beneficiary, because such mismanagement diminished the value of the trust assets to which the remainderman was entitled. The trustee owed the lifetime beneficiary the duty to properly manage the assets of the trust, and a breach of that duty could be enforced by the remainderman. Cf. Siegel v. Novak, 920 So.2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (applying New York law and reaching a similar result). 

How could the successor trustees have avoided this trap?

My idea: focus on obtaining informed consent for the trustee's actions in spite of the settlor's apparent mental incapacity. One way to do that in this context is through the appointment of a guardian of the property for the settlor. Once you have a court-appointed guardian, you've put in place the foundation for informed consent. Building on that foundation, any trust accounting you send the guardian will then bind the settlor/ward, and if the trustees want to be extra safe, they can demand that the guardian sign consents on behalf of the settlor/ward for any out-of-the-ordinary estate planning actions involving the revocable trust [F.S. 736.0303(1), F.S. 736.0813(3)]. If the defendant trustees in this case had coupled these protective measures with a trust-accounting "limitations notice" triggering the shortened 6-month statute of limitations period [F.S. 736.1008(2)], my guess is that we wouldn't be reading about them in the linked-to opinion.

How does a stock split affect a specific bequest of stock?

Stock splits, mergers, consolidations, etc. have been causing trusts-and-estates lawyers and their clients headaches for generations, certainly more than enough time to develop a body of law dealing with that issue. Here's how the 4th DCA summarized Florida common law on this point, which has been codified in F.S. 736.1107:

Florida follows the general rule that where a will bequeaths stock to a beneficiary and the stock splits, because the split is a mere change in form and not in substance, a beneficiary is entitled to the shares generated by stock splits that occur between the date of execution and demise. See In re Vail's Estate, 67 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla.1953). Where the stock devise made in the will is no longer in the estate at the time of the testators death, the gift is considered adeemed. In re Estate of Walters, 700 So.2d 434, 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). For securities, however, this issue is controlled by [F.S. 736.1107]. That statute codifies the rule of ademption and provides that gifts of securities are limited to the securities owned by the trust at the time of death:

Change in securities; accessions; non-ademption

A gift of specific securities, rather than their equivalent value, shall entitle the beneficiary only to:

(1) As much of the gift securities of the same issuer held by the trust estate at the time of the occurrence of the event entitling the beneficiary to distribution.

§ 736.1107, Fla. Stat. As the trust did not hold any more than 54,000 shares of AHP stock on the date of Dorothy's death, the event entitling the beneficiaries to the distribution, the Brundages cannot claim a greater share. They argue that the court should have considered Dorothy's intent with respect to the distribution of the stock before ruling on the legal effect of the transfer. The statute, however, does not require or allow for an inquiry into the intent of the testator. It creates a clear rule of ademption where the trust does not hold the securities at the date of death.

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

Donkersloot v. Donkersloot, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4647415 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct 22, 2008)

Civil Procedure Rule 1.525 governs the mechanics of attorney's fee motions in general commercial litigation.  Here's what the rule says:

Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys' fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal.

There's been confusion for some time as to how exactly this general rule should apply (if at all) within the unique context of a contested probate or trust proceeding. In an effort to address this problem a subcommittee of the Florida Bar's Probate & Trust Litigation Committee composed of  Angela Adams, Laura Sundberg and Eric Virgil has been looking into what sort of legislative fixes could be adopted to provide clarity on the issue. Regardless of what comes of their efforts, the subcommittee's latest written report is an excellent analysis of the rule as it applies (or should apply) in trust proceedings, and a great resource for any trusts-and-estates litigator confronted with a Rule 1.525 issue in real life [click here for a copy].

In light of this background the linked-to opinion is especially timely in that the 2d DCA seems to sanction application of Rule 1.525 in a contested trust proceeding.  According to the subcommittee's report I previously mentioned, this would be the first time a Florida appellate court addresses the application of Rule 1.525 within the context of a trust proceeding. So you may want to remember this case for future reference.

Anyway, in this case the 2d DCA reversed a $195,000 attorneys fee judgment entered against two co-trustees because the fee motion had only sought fees against one of the co-trustees.  Because Rule 1.525 requires the filing of a fee motion as a predicate to a judgment for fees, this was reversible error.  Here's how the 2d DCA explained its ruling:

Prior to the motion hearing, counsel for Mr. Donkersloot and Johannes Donkersloot stipulated that neither Mr. Donkersloot nor his counsel needed to be present. Mr. Donkersloot's counsel attended the hearing briefly, alerted the trial court to the stipulation, and, with leave of court, left the hearing. As the hearing progressed, Johannes Donkersloot, in response to trial court questioning, opined that the trial court “in equity” could award fees and costs against Mr. Donkersloot. Several months later, the trial court entered the amended final judgment awarding almost $195,000 in attorney's fees, costs, and interest against Ms. Hall and Mr. Donkersloot, jointly and severally. On rehearing, the trial court rejected Mr. Donkersloot's argument that the fees could not be imposed absent a proper motion. The trial court concluded that the award was warranted against Mr. Donkersloot as part of the “action in equity.”

Once a party pleads entitlement to attorney's fees, proof of the fees may be presented after final judgment upon motion made within a reasonable time. Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835, 838 (Fla.1991). However, a trial court may not award relief that has not been requested nor tried by consent. Conidaris v. Cresswood Servs., Inc., 779 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that trial court was without authority to order owners to pay where equitable remedy was neither sought nor tried by consent).

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 dictates that a party seeking an award of attorney's fees or costs must serve a motion requesting them within thirty days after entry of the judgment. Undisputedly, Johannes Donkersloot filed a timely motion. His motion did not seek fees from Mr. Donkersloot, nor was the motion served on him. Equally clear is the fact that, by stipulation, neither Mr. Donkersloot nor his counsel needed to be present at the hearing on attorney's fees and costs; there was no trial by consent. Nor was the fee award an action that the trial court could make “in equity.” Equity does not breathe into a rule 1.525 motion unrequested relief. See generally Gulf Landings Ass'n, Inc. v. Hershberger, 845 So.2d 344, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that rule 1.525 is a bright-line rule and eschewing equitable exceptions). Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney's fees and costs as to Mr. Donkersloot.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Brown v. Miller, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4600940 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct 17, 2008)

In trust construction litigation the litigants are asking the judge to read the trust agreement and tell them what it means. In this type of litigation you often have the choice of allowing the court to rule on the trust agreement without taking any evidence or pressing for a trial on the merits. For example, if one side files a summary judgment motion, the other side can either: (1) object on the grounds that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute (i.e., argue a full-blown trial is needed) or (2) file its own counter summary judgment motion and let the trial court dispose of the case without the need of taking evidence.

Why might you opt for the first approach? Because you basically get a second bite at the apple if you lose before the trial court and appeal your case.  Why do you get a second bite at the apple? Because the standard of review on appeal in a case where the issue is limited to a trial court's interpretation of a trust agreement without relying on extrinsic evidence is de novo, a Latin expression meaning "from the beginning," "afresh," "anew," "beginning again." In other words, the appellate court can read the document itself and come to its own conclusions, without any of the deference usually extended to findings of fact by trial courts.

As reflected in the following excerpt from the linked-to opinion, on appeal both sides agreed that the standard of review for this case was de novo.

Here, we agree with both parties that the interpretation of the Elinor Miller Trust documents is a question of law which is entitled to de novo review. See Fleck-Rubin v. Fleck, 933 So.2d 38, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Gallagher v. Dupont, 918 So.2d 342, 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Based on this appellate standard of review the losing side in this case was able to get the 5th DCA to take a fresh look at the contested trust agreement and deliver the win it didn't get at trial. Here's the contested trust-agreement clause and how the 5th DCA explained its ruling:

Contested trust agreement clause:

With respect to Trust “A-1” and Trust “A-2”, the Trustee shall pay quarterly or oftener, the entire net income derived from the trust estates to my husband, THOMAS W. MILLER, JR., so long as he shall live. In addition thereto, the Trustee shall pay to my husband, THOMAS W. MILLER, JR., such amounts from the principal of Trust “A-2” first and then from “A-1” after the exhaustion of “A-2”, as it deems necessary or advisable to provide liberally for his maintenance, health, and support in his accustomed manner of living, taking into account all of his other income and means of support known to the Trustee. The Trustee shall also pay to my husband such additional amounts of principal from Trust “A-2” as he may from time to time request....

Ruling:

Tom argues that Elinor only authorized transfers from Trust A-2 to “my husband.” Based on this argument, Tom contends that the transfer to the Bill Miller Trust was invalid because Elinor was “not married” to the Bill Miller Trust. Appellants respond that the Bill Miller Trust was an irrevocable trust and, accordingly, a conveyance to the Bill Miller Trust was equivalent to a transfer to Bill Miller. We agree with Appellants. It is undisputed that Bill maintained 100% control over the Bill Miller Trust assets. Furthermore, he had the right to end the trust at any time and thereby regain absolute ownership over the trust property. Florida Nat'l Bank of Palm Beach Co. v. Genova, 460 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla.1984). Thus, Bill had complete and unfettered access to the seven million dollars conveyed into his trust. In construing the provisions of a trust document, the cardinal rule is to give effect to the grantor's intent, if possible. Knauer v. Barnett, 360 So.2d 399, 405 (Fla.1978). We believe that in authorizing transfers of Trust A-2 assets to her husband, Elinor clearly intended to permit transfers to an entity, such as an irrevocable trust, over which her husband retained complete control and the right to absolute ownership.

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

Urbanek v. Hopkins, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4489266 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 08, 2008)

What this case is really about is good lawyering. Miami probate litigator David H. Goldberg was hired to represent an 88-year old man suffering from Parkinson's disease who had the misfortune of getting sucked into trust litigation he didn't start and wasn't a party to. The trustee/defendant in this case decided he needed to depose this poor guy, and come hell or high water, the Broward County probate judge adjudicating this matter was going to make sure he got his way.

I don't know David Goldberg, but I think his work in this matter is a case study in effective advocacy and hope someone let's him know I said so.

GOOD LAWYERING

• Action:

The trustee/defendant in this case sought to take an oral deposition of August Urbanek, the 88-year old grantor of the irrevocable trust at the center of this case and the father of the trust-beneficiary who's the plaintiff in this case.

• Reaction:

David Goldberg filed an objection to the deposition on the grounds of age, health and privacy. In support of his objection, Goldberg filed a detailed affidavit from a physician specializing in neurology, having specific knowledge about the grantor-father's condition concluding that the proposed deposition “would have detrimental effects on his Parkinson's disease” and his health would be “severely impacted.”

It's unclear from the linked-to opinion, but Goldberg apparently then also filed a motion to limit his client's deposition to written questions.

• Action:

In response to Goldberg's motion, the trial court ordered the grantor-father and his physician to appear in court for a hearing on the grantor-father's medical condition. In spite of the affidavit establishing danger to the grantor-father's health from being forced to appear for a deposition, the judge nevertheless insisted that he come to court to testify. The judge rejected the alternative of first permitting only a written deposition. The judge also failed to ascertain how any testimony of the grantor-father might be relevant or lead to relevant evidence.

• Reaction:

Goldberg immediately filed a motion seeking to have the hearing on his client's medical condition conducted by telephone.  On the day of the hearing, Goldberg showed up in court without his client explaining, again, that if his client were required to be there in person his health would be “severely impacted.”

• Action:

Apparently getting a little pissed off by now, the court ordered the grantor-father to submit to a compulsory medical examination by a physician chosen by the trustee within the next 30 days. At this point I think it's important to say again that the grantor-father was not a party to this lawsuit. What happened to him could have conceivably happened to any bystander the parties to the lawsuit took it upon themselves to decide was a necessary witness: a lawyer says he wants to depose you, you say no for medical reasons and "presto," a judge is ordering you to surrender all of your personal privacy rights and submit yourself to a physical examination by a doctor not of your own choosing. Am I the only one who finds this entire situation more than a little scary?

• Reaction:

Goldberg filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the 4th DCA to quash the trial court's compulsory-medical-examination order.

THE LAW

Based on this record (again, the product of good lawyering), the 4th DCA made short work of the probate court's order, quashing the directive requiring an examination of the grantor-father and requiring any deposition of the grantor-father to be limited initially to written deposition questions.  For future reference, here's the legal reasoning underlying the 4th DCA's ruling:

• Probate court lacked authority to sanction witness:

The grantor-father was never served with a subpoena to appear, and the court made no finding of contempt for the personal failing of the grantor-father to attend the hearing. See Pevsner v. Frederick, 656 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (sanctions may not be imposed against nonparty for discovery violation in absence of finding of contempt). The affidavit of the personal physician raises substantial doubts as to whether the grantor-father was even physically capable of appearing personally for a deposition or in court. In the absence of contempt, under our Pevsner decision the trial court had no authority at this point to impose any sanctions on the grantor-father. Id.

•  Grantor-father was entitled to a protective order based on his affidavit:

As to the compulsory medical examination (CME) of the grantor-father, the trial judge overlooked the burden placed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 on the proponent of a CME. Under the rule, the party seeking a CME must show that the person to be examined is a party in the litigation who has himself placed his physical condition at issue. The party seeking the CME must establish good cause for such an exam. Here the trial judge should have first required written deposition questions of the grantor-father. Before the trustee could thereafter show good cause for a CME, he would thereupon have to show why the results of the written deposition failed to furnish the relevant information sought from the grantor-father.

Without a showing of good cause, the burden never shifted to the grantor-father to sustain his objection to the CME, and the grantor-father was entitled to a protective order on the basis of his physician's affidavit. See Olges, 856 So.2d at 11 (“But the question of protective rules or protective orders never arises and the burden never shifts unless the proponent of the examination shows good cause for an examination in the first place.”). “Good cause” for such an examination is not made on the basis of conclusory allegations or assertions of counsel. See Fruh v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv., 430 So.2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (two requirements of “in controversy” and “good cause” not met by mere conclusory allegations in pleadings, nor by mere relevance to case, but require affirmative showing by movant that each condition as to which examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy).

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

This is the first time I’ve ever done this, and I don’t plan on doing it again. However, because I laid it on so thick in favor of David Goldberg, I think it’s only fair to “even out” the coverage (if only to make sure David’s head doesn’t get too big). Below is a redacted version of a comment I received in response to this blog post.

But first an explanatory note. The linked-to opinion is only four pages long, and of those four pages the “facts of the case” represent only a few paragraphs. When the 4th DCA was drafting its opinion I assume they only focused on the facts most relevant to their legal conclusions. They have limited resources, and there’s no sense in making the opinion any longer than it needs to be. However, a byproduct of the court’s editing process is that most, if not all, of the “facts” supporting the losing side of this appeal probably didn’t make it into the published opinion. These facts may not have been directly relevant to the outcome of the appeal, but perhaps they would have cast a completely different light on this case, perhaps a light less favorable to the winning side. The point is I don’t know, and it’s simply impossible for me to read each side’s appellate briefs before writing about the published appellate opinion.

Note to self and blog readers: Remember there’s always multiple sides to every story, and the side that makes it into the published appellate decision may not always be the one closest to the "truth".

"What this case is really about is permitting an 88 year old man to be fleeced by his son who is involved in litigation over the irrevocable trust established by his father a number of years ago. By taking advantage of a vulnerable adult, the son is taking funds from his father outside of the trust and is now using that money to sue on the trust as well. The issue is whether the Court had the authority to order a independent medical examination of the 88 year old to give a deposition raised by the son and then the gentlemen's counsel. I think your statements on the support of the decision are wrong and defeat the protection of vulnerable adults."

Again, if anyone has any other comments they’d like to share regarding this case, please post them on the comment page to this blog post.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Duncombe v. Adderly, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4489234 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 08, 2008)

If a beneficiary of an estate wants to get his attorney's fees paid with assets of the estate, the statute he'll have to hang his hat on is F.S. 733.106(3), which provides as follows:

(3) Any attorney who has rendered services to an estate may be awarded reasonable compensation from the estate.

The big question under this statute is always: what's it mean to "render services" to an estate? In the linked-to case the probate court ruled that the winning side in litigation involving who gets appointed personal representative didn't qualify for fees under F.S. 733.106(3). Wrong answer. Here's how the 4th DCA summarized the law on this point in its reversal of the probate court's order denying attorneys fees:

Duncombe . . . sought attorney's fees incurred during these proceedings under section 733.106(3), which provides “any attorney who has rendered services to an estate may be awarded reasonable compensation from the estate.” The trial court believed that there had to be an enhancement in value or an advancement of the testator's intent as set forth in the will, citing Samuels v. Estate of Ahern, 436 So.2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), . . .

We do not read Samuels that narrowly. Preventing the appointment of a personal representative named in the will is a basis for the award of attorney's fees, Baumer v. Howard, 542 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), as is obtaining the removal of a representative, In re Estate of Eisenberg, 433 So.2d 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Appellees argue that we should affirm because no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated, but that is not the standard of review. Under the undisputed facts in this case, neither Adderly, a transferee of some of the property, nor her lawyer, could have served as personal representative if an interested party objected. The error in this case involved the interpretation of the words “benefit to the estate” in section 733.106(3). We review statutory interpretation de novo. San Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 983 So.2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Reversed.

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

Eichler v. Leshner, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4459029 (M.D.Fla. Sep 29, 2008)

In the linked-to case the beneficiary of a trust tried to sue the trust's investment manager for having "failed to properly invest trust assets."  The defendant's filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in the account agreement signed by the trustee. The trust beneficiary/plaintiff in the current litigation was not a signatory to this agreement.

Compelling arbitration by non-signing trust beneficiaries:

I've written before about the "virtual representation" doctrine and how it can serve to bind beneficiaries to a court-approved settlement agreement [click here].  The virtual-representation doctrine has been codified - and expanded - under Florida's new Trust Code.  Which is why I would have assumed that the binding effect of the arbitration agreement at issue in this case would have been upheld by reference to section 736.303(3) of Florida's Trust Code, which provides as follows:

To the extent there is no conflict of interest between the representative and the person represented or among those being represented with respect to a particular question or dispute .  .  . (3) A trustee may represent and bind the beneficiaries of the trust.

But that's no what happened, instead the court relied on an equitable estoppel argument to bind the trust beneficiary/plaintiff to the arbitration agreement signed by his trustee and the defendant. Here's how the court summarized the general rules for deciding when parties who didn't sign an arbitration agreement can nevertheless be bound by its terms:

Although arbitration is a contractual right that is generally predicated on an express decision to waive the right to trial in a judicial forum, the lack of a written arbitration agreement is not necessarily an impediment to arbitration. Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 10 F.3d 753 756-57 (11th Cir.1993). Certain limited exceptions, such as equitable estoppel, allow nonsignatories to a contract to compel arbitration. MS Dealer Service Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 947 (11th Cir.1999). A second exception exists when, under agency or related principles, the relationship between the signatory and nonsignatory defendants is sufficiently close that only by permitting the nonsignatory to invoke arbitration may evisceration of the underlying arbitration agreement between the signatories be avoided. Id. (citing Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc., 981 F.Supp. 1423, 1432 (M.D.Ala.1997). A third exception applies when the parties to a contract together agree, upon formation of their agreement, to confer certain benefits thereunder upon a third party, affording that third party certain rights of action under the contract. Id.

Why didn't the litigants and/or the court even mention section 736.303(3) of Florida's Trust Code? Perhaps the defendants were not confident the court would agree to extend the virtual-representation doctrine to the transactional context. The virtual-representation doctrine is a solution developed by courts for application specifically within the litigation context. Extending this doctrine to arbitration agreements (or any other contractual transaction) is a significant step. In his recently published article entitled, SERVE THE CHEERLEADER – SERVE THE WORLD: REPRESENTATION IN ESTATE AND TRUST PROCEEDINGS AND UNDER THE UNIFORM TRUST CODE AND OTHER MODERN TRUST CODES, Professor Martin D. Begleiter specifically addressed this point as follows:

We have noted that the purposes of the representation doctrines are necessity that cases proceed where unborns are necessary parties and convenience in avoiding the expense of a guardian ad litem. The concerns are to obtain jurisdiction over unborns and persons under disability or dispense with such persons as parties and bind such persons to the result of the judicial proceeding. To go beyond this to bind such persons in a transactional context is a large and significant step. It is one thing to bind someone to a court decision on an issue of law or fact. It is quite another to say that, where voluntary action of a person is required to effectuate an outcome, that such action of another person shall be treated as consent by the person under a disability or the unborn. While the importance to the living parties and the resolution of disputes may justify the representation doctrine in court cases, it is difficult if not impossible to apply such a rationale where affirmative action by a person, such as consent or execution of a release, is required for the desired result. Nevertheless, in a scattering of cases, courts have used virtual representation to attribute such consent to parties who never consented.

Lesson learned?

Until we have a body of common law interpreting and applying the Florida Trust Code, a belts-and-suspenders approach is probably a good idea when litigating any of the Trust Code's more controversial provisions. I think the arbitration issue in this case could have been decided by simply citing to section 736.303(3) of Florida's Trust Code. But then again, maybe this particular judge wouldn't want to be the first to rely on this particular new statute to extend the virtual-representation doctrine beyond anything otherwise permitted under pre-code common law. Since no one can predict with 100% certainty how any judge will rule, citing to well-settled, general principals of law for binding non-signatories to arbitration agreements was probably a good idea. In other words, if there's more than one winning argument, it usually doesn't hurt to include all of them in your brief and let your judge pick the one he or she likes best.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Balboni v. LaRocque, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4414240 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 01, 2008

The absence of supporting evidence is a recurring theme when it comes to appellate reversals in probate litigation [click here].  In this case the issue was whether the proponents of a lost will had overcome the presumption that the will was intentionally destroyed.  As I've written about before, the law in Florida is that a will that was in the possession of the testator before his death and that cannot be located after his death is presumed to have been destroyed by the testator with the intention of revoking it [click here].

In the linked-to opinion the 4th DCA summarized the evidence past courts have held is sufficient to overcome the presumption that a lost will was intentionally revoked as follows:

Evidence that can serve to rebut the presumption of intentional revocation of a lost will consists of evidence that the will was either accidentally lost or destroyed, or willfully and fraudulently destroyed by an adverse party. Id. In several cases, Florida courts have found the presumption of intentional revocation to be rebutted by a showing of: 1) evidence that a person with an adverse interest, and the opportunity, may have destroyed the will, see In re Estate of Washington, 56 So.2d at 547; Lonergan v. Estate of Budahazi, 669 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Upson v. Estate of Carville, 369 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); 2) evidence that the will was accidentally destroyed, see In re Estate of Carlton, 276 So.2d at 833 (presumption was rebutted where decedent repeatedly spoke of his will and his intention to leave his estate to the petitioner, although the decedent's safe was found waterlogged and the papers inside turned to “mush”); 3) evidence that the original will had been seen among the decedent's papers after her death, see Silvers v. Estate of Silvers, 274 So.2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); and 4) evidence that the decedent was insane and thus did not have testamentary capacity to effectively revoke the will, see In re Estate of Niernsee, 2 So.2d 737 (Fla.1941).

No Evidence + Speculation & Conjecture = Reversal

The big problem for the lost-will proponents in the linked-to case was that they had all sorts of plausible sounding theories for why the lost will should be admitted to probate . . . but NO EVIDENCE to back them up. Here's how the 4th DCA explained that not having evidence in support of your arguments can be a problem (yes, even in probate proceedings):

In the instant case, the evidence relied upon-the mirror-image wills of Bill and Charlotte, the decedent's longstanding testamentary scheme, the discord between the decedent and granddaughter Kim, and the presence of nurses and visitors in the home-is simply not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the decedent intentionally revoked his will at some point in time prior to his death. Since it was undisputed that Charlotte predeceased her husband, the evidence that her will was found is not material. Likewise, evidence of a decedent's fondness of someone or, in this case, a lack thereof, is not material to the question of revocation. See id. at 43. Further, the fact that people with no interest in the will had the opportunity to accidentally destroy it and “might possibly have done so obviously is no evidence whatever that they did.” Id. We therefore conclude that here, as in Baird, the petitioners have failed to rebut the presumption of revocation with competent substantial evidence and instead have “presented no more than the fabled twins of speculation and conjecture to establish that [the decedent] might not have revoked his will.” Id. at 43-44.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

McCormick v. McCormick, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4377136 (Fla. 1st DCA Sep 29, 2008)

Florida probate judges are given a great deal of latitude when making calls on how an estate should be administered.  But there's one estate-administration issue over which their authority is severely limited: whether or not to appoint the personal representative nominated in a decedent's will.  For some reason this bit of Florida law is often overlooked [click here, here].

But what if a different PR is appointed before the decedent's will is found? Does the originally appointed PR get to stay on even if he's not the person nominated in the decedent's later-discovered will?  You can see why a well-intentioned probate judge might be tempted to leave well enough alone.  If the originally-appointed PR is doing a tolerably good job, why upset the apple-cart by booting him out midway through the estate administration and appointing his allegedly discombobulated half-brother for no other reason than he's the guy nominated as PR in the decedent's will?

In the linked-to opinion the probate court decided to leave well enough alone and was reversed for doing so; underscoring, once again, the amount of deference Florida law gives to a person's choice of personal representative.  Unless the nominated PR is disqualified as a matter of law: he's in, end of story.  Here's how the 1st DCA stated the point:

As provided by section 733.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), when granting letters of administration, the probate court shall, in testate estates, allow preference to the personal representative nominated by the will. “Nothing in section 733.301(1)(a) purports to vest discretion in the trial courts to disregard the preference there specified, as long as the personal representative nominated by the decedent is statutorily qualified to serve.” Warner v. Estate of McCloskey, 943 So.2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

We acknowledge that during the hearing below, counsel for appellee advanced arguments that appellant should not be appointed to act as personal representative due to allegations of certain conduct by appellant after the death of McCormick, Sr. The probate court did not, however, base its order upon any ground other than the timeliness of appellant's counter-petition for administration. This ground, as we have previously observed, is not valid. Pursuant to section 733.301(6), Florida Statutes (1999):

After letters have been granted in either a testate or an intestate estate, if any will is subsequently admitted to probate the letters shall be revoked and new letters granted as provided in subsection (1).

Accordingly, we find that the controlling statutes anticipate a situation such as occurred in the present case. Although letters of administration issued during administration of an apparently intestate estate, such letters must be revoked “when a later discovered will is admitted to probate.” Fouraker v. Carter, 507 So.2d 749, 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). “Upon admission of the will, the personal representative nominated by the will is entitled to preference of appointment.” Id.

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

Jaylene, Inc. v. Moots, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4181140 (Fla. 2d DCA Sep 12, 2008)

It's not uncommon for intermediate-level appellate courts to disagree with each each other, that's why we have supreme courts.  But here's something you don't see every day: the 2d DCA disagreeing with itself by ruling two different ways on the same issue within a single 12-month period. 

In January 2008 the 2d DCA reversed a trial judge's order in In re Estate of McKibbin [click here] holding that a decedent's estate was NOT bound by an arbitration agreement signed prior to her death by her attorney-in-fact because the power of attorney did not specifically grant the attorney-in-fact authority to enter into an arbitration agreement.  Fast forward to the current linked-to opinion: the 2d DCA reversed a trial judge's order by basically ignoring its own prior opinion (trial courts in the 2d Circuit must love this).  This time around the 2d DCA held that a decedent's estate IS bound by an arbitration agreement signed prior to her death by her attorney-in-fact, in the absence of specif arbitration authority, based on general language contained in the decedent's power of attorney.  Here's how the 2d DCA explained its current ruling:

.  .  .  In the POA, the principal gave the attorney-in-fact “full power and authority to act on my behalf.” This full power and authority extended to include the authority “to manage and conduct all of my affairs and to exercise all of my legal rights and powers.” The POA provided further that it was to “be construed broadly as a General Power of Attorney.” The POA unequivocally expresses the principal's intent to make a comprehensive grant of authority to the attorney-in-fact. We conclude that the grant of authority in the POA was broad enough to authorize the attorney-in-fact to consent to arbitrate claims arising out of the Agreement. See Bryant, 937 So.2d at 269.

Ms. Moots correctly points out that the power of attorney under review in the Bryant case specifically authorized the attorney-in-fact to agree to arbitration. Id. at 268. Here, the power to consent to arbitrate the principal's claims was not one of the powers specifically listed in the extensive list of powers explicitly granted. Nevertheless, the POA also provided that “[t]he listing of specific powers is not intended to limit or restrict the general powers granted in this Power of Attorney in any manner.” (Emphasis added.) In light of this provision, Ms. Moots' argument that the absence of an express grant of authority to arbitrate in the POA compels a restrictive interpretation precluding the authority to consent to arbitration is unpersuasive.

 When the 2d DCA was reminded of it's own prior opinion, the court brushed it aside as follows:

In support of affirmance, Ms. Moots relies on this court's decision in McKibbin v. Alterra Health Care Corp. (In re Estate of McKibbin), 977 So.2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). In McKibbin, the resident at an assisted living facility did not sign the residency agreement that included an arbitration agreement. Id. at 613. Instead, the resident's son signed on his mother's behalf under a durable power of attorney from the resident. Id. The McKibbin court noted the limitations of the power of attorney under review in that case as follows:

Nothing in that power of attorney, however, gave Ms. McKibbin's son the legal authority to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of his mother. See Kotsch v. Kotsch, 608 So.2d 879, 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that powers of attorney are strictly construed to grant only the powers specified). Furthermore, there was no other basis upon which to bind Ms. McKibbin to the arbitration agreement. Hence, the Estate was not bound to arbitrate....

Id. For this reason, the McKibbin court held that the circuit court erred in granting Alterra's motion to compel arbitration. Id.

However, McKibbin does not compel a different result here. The McKibbin case is controlling only to the extent that it is possible to determine from the court's opinion that the power of attorney at issue in that case was similar to the POA held by Ms. Moots. See Shaw v. Jain, 914 So.2d 458, 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). But the opinion in McKibbin does not set forth the language of the power of attorney under review in that case. Id. Thus McKibbin is not controlling here where the POA unambiguously makes a broad, general grant of authority to the attorney-in-fact.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cutler v. Cutler, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 4057751(Fla. 3d DCA Sep 03, 2008)

When I first wrote about this case the 3d DCA upheld a probate court order refusing to apportion any probate expenses to a devise of freely-devisable homestead property under the “inuring clause” of Article X, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, effectively frustrating the testator's clearly expressed testamentary intent [click here].

In a decision that just goes to shows it's never over 'till it's over, in response to a motion for rehearing en banc the 3d DCA completely reversed itself and ruled that the freely-devisable homestead property in this case could in fact be sold to pay probate administrative expenses.  For those of us who follow Florida's byzantine homestead laws, this is pretty shocking stuff.  Here's how the 3d DCA explained its ruling this time around:

While we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the property devised to Cynthia was Edith's homestead, we cannot agree that the constitutional exemption from creditors' claims inured to Cynthia's benefit.

It is a cardinal rule of testamentary construction that “the primary objective in construing a will is the intent of the testator .” McKean v. Warburton, 919 So.2d 341, 344 (Fla.2005) (“a person can dispose of his or her property by will as he or she pleases so long as that person's intent is not contrary to any principle of law or public policy” (citing Mosgrove v. Mach, 133 Fla. 459, 182 So. 786, 791 (1938))); Marshall v. Hewett, 156 Fla. 645, 24 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1945) (“In will construction the primary objective of the courts is to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the testator. In the ascertainment of such intention the will in its entirety will be considered, and when once the intention has been discovered the wording of the will will be given such liberal construction and interpretation as will effectuate the intention of the testator so far as may be consistent with established rules of law.”) (citation omitted); Phillips v. Estate of Holzmann, 740 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“The polestar in construing any will is to ascertain the intent of the testator.”).

In this case, the trust agreement expressly stated that the corpus of the trust, that is, the interests in Edith's residence and the adjacent vacant lot, were to pass to, and be administered as part of, her estate upon her death. Edith's will provides that the interest in her residence held by the trust should be passed to her daughter and that the interest in the adjacent vacant lot should pass to her son. She also directed that her debts be satisfied equally from both properties should the funds in her estate be insufficient to satisfy those debts.

*     *     *     *     *

.  .  .  It has long been recognized that the owner of homestead property may devise that property in a manner that terminates the protections accorded by article X, section 4. In Estate of Price v. West Florida Hospital., Inc., 513 So.2d 767, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the court confirmed that where a testator directs the sale of homestead property and distribution of the proceeds, the proceeds lose their homestead character and become part of the estate subject to administrative costs and creditors' claims. As the court explained, this is because the same result would have obtained had the testator sold the property and either gifted or used the proceeds while alive. Id. (“[I]f Mrs. Price had sold her house during her lifetime and distributed the proceeds to her two children, those proceeds would unquestionably lose their homestead character and would be subject to the claims of her creditors.”); see Knadle v. Estate of Knadle, 686 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding that because a will specifically directed that homestead property be sold and the proceeds placed in the residue for distribution along with other assets, it lost its homestead character); see also Thompson v. Laney, 766 So.2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (confirming that where a will directs that homestead property be sold and the proceeds distributed, the proceeds lose their homestead protection).

Although Edith did not direct that her home be sold, she did direct, in a specific manner, that it be used to satisfy her debts. This was the equivalent of ordering it sold and the proceeds distributed to pay debts, actions which Price and its progeny confirm results in loss of homestead protections.FN1 While the benefits of homestead protections vest in a qualified beneficiary at the moment of a testator's death,FN2 the property in this case passed into the beneficiary's hands impressed with the obligation to pay the testatrix's debts, an obligation that deprived the property of homestead protection under article X, section 4.

This is, of course, wholly consistent with article X, section 4 which expressly confers the power on the owner of homestead property to sell, mortgage, or give it away. See Art. X, § 4(a)(2)(c), Fla. Const. (“The owner of homestead real estate, joined by the spouse if married, may alienate the homestead by mortgage, sale or gift and, if married, may by deed transfer title to an estate by the entirety with the spouse.”). If a homestead owner (with no spouse and children) can sell, mortgage or give homestead property away while alive and use the proceeds from any such transaction as he or she sees fit, that same owner may give the property away upon death and order it to be used to satisfy debts even if such a devise means the property will no longer enjoy homestead protection.

In this case, rather than selling or mortgaging her homestead interests while alive and using the funds recognized to pay debts, Edith devised her homestead property to her daughter and expressly directed that this devise be used to satisfy a portion of her debts. This devise is wholly consistent with Tescher, Snyder, and Warburton and with article X, section 4 of the Florida Constitution and should be given effect.

Lesson learned?

In his dissent Judge Shepherd made the following observation:

By requiring the devise to Cynthia to abate to pay estate expenses, we incorrectly become the first court to hold that a general direction to pay estate expenses trumps constitutional homestead protections.

Whether you agree with the majority's decision or Judge Shepherd's dissent, why take the risk? If there's any risk your client's homestead property will be needed to pay probate administrative expenses, I think it still makes sense to include specific language in the will or trust authorizing sale of the homestead property for this purpose.  Here's how Judge Shepherd described the specific-sale language needed to make sure your client's estate doesn't become the next homestead test case:

Nor do the “sale cases” cited by the majority offer any comfort to the majority. See supra p. 8. In both Estate of Price v. West Florida Hospital, Inc., 513 So.2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), and Knadle v. Estate of Knadle, 686 So.2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), the testators expressly directed their homestead properties be sold upon their respective deaths and the proceeds distributed either equally to their surviving adult children in Estate of Price or under the residuary clause of the will in Knadle. These and a whole host of other Florida cases hold that, in a contest between the application of Article X, section 4(b) and a will directive-as was the circumstance in the two cases cited by the majority-protected homestead becomes an estate asset if and only if “the will specifically orders that the [homestead] property be sold.” Estate of Hamel, 821 So.2d at 1279; see also McKean v. Warburton, 919 So.2d 341, 147 (Fla.2006) (quoting Knadle); Engleke v. Estate of Engleke, 921 So.2d 693, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (stating that unless a trust specifically directs homestead to be sold, rights of heirs attach at death and homestead property is protected from creditors). Thompson, cited by the majority, confirms the degree of specificity required in a sale provision in a will to overcome a “protected homestead” challenge:

Florida law specifically provides that homestead property is not subject to the administration of the court unless the will specifically requires that the property be sold. See §§ 733.607-608 Fla. Stat. (1995); Knadle v. Estate of Knadle, 686 So.2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (where a testatrix directs in her will that her homestead be sold and the proceeds divided between her adult children, the proceeds lose their homestead character and become subject to the claims of creditors); Estate of Price v. West Florida Hosp., Inc., 513 So.2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (proceeds of sale of testatrix' homestead, pursuant to will directing sale and distribution of proceeds to adult children, lost their homestead character and were subject to creditors' claims). The will in the present case makes no such provision.

Thompson, 766 So.2d at 1088.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Florida the law is clear: you can't contest a will until after the testator dies. F.S. 732.518. But that doesn't necessarily mean you can't preempt a will contest before the testator dies.

For example, suppose you're working with an older client with diminishing capacity whose will is sure to be contested.  What if you initiated a voluntary guardianship proceeding and obtained a final judgment specifically approving the ward's will and specifically finding that the ward's will is NOT the product of undue influence, fraud, etc?  Unlike in a will contest, you'd have the actual testator in front of the judge testifying as to the validity of his will.  This judgment should collaterally estopp re-litigation of these same issues in a will contest after the testator/ward dies if all interested persons in this estate were given notice of the guardianship proceeding and an opportunity to be heard.  Presto! Will contest has been preempted.

That's basically what happened in a recent California case that received some national attention in a short piece by Pamela A. MacLean of the The National Law Journal entitled In Appellate First, Attacks on Wills Barred After Estate Owner Dies. Here's an excerpt:

For the first time, a California appellate court has said that when a conservator seeks court approval of an estate plan, while the subject is living, any challenge to the will must be raised at that hearing -- not when the person dies. [Murphy v. Murphy, No. A115177.]

The appellate decision is the first in the country to say attacks on wills would be barred after the estate owner dies, if there has been a court-approved substituted judgment, according to David Baer, attorney at Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy in San Francisco. Baer represented the daughter of William J. Murphy in an estate battle with her brother.

The opinion essentially bulletproofs the will of a person found incompetent and placed under the protection of a conservator, if the court OKs a revised estate plan, according to Baer. He added that the court made clear that notice to potential objectors is required to protect due process.

"You essentially can't contest an estate plan that has been approved in by a substituted judgment order," Baer said. "A substituted judgment is an opportunity to get a court order for the conservator to sign various instruments," he said.

The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco held in the June 26 decision that an attack on such a court order, after the conservatee dies, is barred by collateral estoppel rules. Murphy v. Murphy, No. A115177.

Lesson learned?

One of the most challenging attorney-client scenarios is the older client with diminishing capacity. There are lots of solid articles/resources out there addressing this scenario from an estate-planning perspective [click here for Older Clients With Diminishing Capacity And Their Advance Directives (by A. Frank Johns)], but I haven't seen any that points to guardianship proceedings as a tool for heading off future will contests. The linked-to California case could provide a template for that strategy.

Blog Post Update:

As an update to this post, in this post the Pennsylvania Fiduciary Litigation Blog pointed me to an article published in "Trusts and Estate Fiduciary Litigation Update," August 20, 2008, by Samantha E. Weissbluth, senior counsel, and John P. Mounce, summer associate, Foley & Lardner LLP, Chicago, entitled Barred by Lunatics Law.  The article discusses the implications of the California case linked-to above and concludes with the following observations:

The lesson here is that court approval of an individual’s estate plan when that individual is under a conservatorship will protect the plan against any posthumous contest to it (assuming, of course, that interested parties receive notice of the conservator’s petition to approve the plan).

Those of you with clients in dicey family situations in which you worry about a posthumous contest might want to weigh the risks, costs and public nature of a conservatorship proceeding (or some kind of declaratory judgment action if permitted in your state) to try and bulletproof your client’s plan.

And, attorneys representing clients disgruntled by a now incapacitated relative’s estate plan should certainly come armed and ready for battle upon receiving notice of an action for court approval of that plan.

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

For no reason other than I find this bit of historical/T&E crossover trivia interesting, here's a copy of the arbitration clause contained in George Washington's will:

But having endeavoured to be plain, and explicit in all Devises--even at the expence of prolixity, perhaps of tautology, I hope, and trust, that no disputes will arise concerning them; but if, contrary to expectation, the case should be otherwise from the want of legal expression, or the usual technical terms, or because too much or too little has been said on any of the Devises to be consonant with law, My Will and direction expressly is, that all disputes (if unhappily any should arise) shall be decided by three impartial and intelligent men, known for their probity and good understanding; two to be chosen by the disputants--each having the choice of one--and the third by those two. Which three men thus chosen, shall, unfettered by Law, or legal constructions, declare their sense of the Testators intention; and such decision is, to all intents and purposes to be as binding on the Parties as if it had been given in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Not that I'm taking any credit for uncovering this gem all on my own, this clause has been popping up on various blogs for some time [click here, here, here].

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

LaCalle v. Barquin, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 3358300 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug 13, 2008)

Sometimes even when you're right, you still lose (yet another example of the risks inherent to litigation).  In the linked-to case the 3d DCA reversed a probate court order dismissing a properly filed petition to establish and probate a lost will.  The 3d DCA based its reversal on the following:

1.  Ongoing probate of an earlier will does not preclude a later-filed petition to probate a lost will

3d DCA: [T]he trial court might have been swayed [into granting the motion to dismiss] by Movant's argument that a petition to administer another earlier-dated will already had been granted. [This fact] does not preclude or estop the advancement of [a petition to establish and probate a lost will]. A petition for administration of a will and a petition to establish a lost or destroyed will in probate are different proceedings. See Lowy v. Roberts, 453 So.2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

2.  Yes, even in probate, the rules for motions to dismiss still apply

3d DCA: The trial court might have been misled by affidavits-attached to the motion to dismiss-of the two parties alleged to have witnessed the execution of the destroyed will, stating they “do not recall” having witnessed the will's execution  .  .  .   [I]t is apodictic that matters dehors the four corners of a complaint or petition may not be considered on a motion to dismiss. See Fla. Prob. R. 5.025(d)(2) (“[T]he proceedings [to probate a lost or destroyed will], as nearly as practicable, shall be conducted similar to suits of a civil nature and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern, ...”); see also Pizzi v. Cent. Bank & Trust Co., 250 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla.1971) (holding-on a motion to dismiss-that “[t]he court must confine itself strictly to the allegations within the four corners of the complaint” (quoting Kest v. Nathanson, 216 So.2d 233, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968))); N.E. at West Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So.2d 570, 570-71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to ascertain whether a plaintiff has alleged a good cause of action and the court must confine itself strictly to the four corners of the complaint.”).

Lesson learned?

Florida's probate courts are underfunded and overworked. So it should come as a surprise to no one that smart, well meaning judges will make mistakes from time to time.  So how do we and our clients "deal" with this fact?  If at all possible, negotiate a settlement.  If that doesn't work, take full advantage of the other ADR tools available to Florida litigants [click here].  If that doesn't work and you find yourself in court in spite of your best efforts, plan accordingly.

First, factor in the risk of an appeal (or multiple appeals) into your litigation budget. If your client has set aside $10,000 or $100,000 or $1,000,000 to spend on your case, make sure a good % of that budget is set aside to pay for appeals.  Second, manage expectations. No matter how badly your client wants to be assured his case is a slam dunk (and how many times he asks you), don't fall for that trap. Keep reminding him of the facts of life: in litigation, even when you're right, you can still spend a lot of money and lose.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Demello ex rel. Jerome Adams Trust, Irene V. Adams Trust v. Buckman, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2906652 (Fla. 4th DCA Jul 30, 2008)

In the linked-to case the beneficiary of a trust successfully sued her trustee for breach of trust. As a result of this win the trial court awarded her attorneys' fees and costs. Although unstated, I am assuming the statutory basis for the trial court's fees/costs award was the then-applicable version of F.S. 736.1004(1)(a), which provides as follows:

(1)(a) In all actions for breach of fiduciary duty or challenging the exercise of, or failure to exercise, a trustee's powers . . . the court shall award taxable costs as in chancery actions, including attorney fees and guardian ad litem fees.

This, in essence, is a “prevailing party” provision. See In re Estate of Simon, 549 So.2d 210 (Fla. 3 DCA 1989) ("In chancery or equity actions, the well-settled rule is that 'costs follow the judgment unless there are circumstances that render application of this rule unjust.'"). I am also assuming the trial-court's ruling as to costs was guided by the recently revised Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs [click here].

NO Evidence = NO Fees

In the linked-to case that old nemesis of the trusts-and-estates bar - an appellate worthy evidentiary record (or lack thereof) - reared its ugly head on appeal, undercutting the trust beneficiary's trial-court win. While a trustee may not have to put on expert-witness testimony in support of an attorney's fee/cost award [F.S. 736.0206(5)], a trust beneficiary certainly does . . . at least according to the 4th DCA.  Here's how the 4th DCA made this point:

This court has previously recognized that “an award of attorney's fees must be supported by expert evidence, including the testimony of the attorney who performed the services.” Rodriguez v. Campbell, 720 So.2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Generally, when an attorney's fee or cost order is appealed and the record on appeal is devoid of competent substantial evidence to support the order, the appellate court will reverse the award without remand. However, when the record contains some competent substantial evidence supporting the fee or cost order, yet fails to include some essential evidentiary support such as testimony from the attorney performing the services, or testimony from additional expert witnesses, the appellate court will reverse and remand the order for additional findings or an additional hearing, if necessary.

Id. at 268 (citations omitted).

In this case, Jay Schwartz, who was Buckman's trial counsel, testified regarding his fee. Buckman also presented the expert testimony of Henry Zippay, Esq. Zippay testified that he was hired to evaluate the materials presented to him by Schwartz for the purpose of evaluating a reasonable hourly rate and fee in the case. Zippay testified:

I don't have an actual reasonable attorney's fee. I can only suggest as to reasonable hours, and what I've read through here, you had somewhere around 340 some hours, and you're the only one that I really can testify as to having knowledge of. I find that your 346 or 344, or whatever figure it was, is a reasonable fee or reasonable amount of hours subject to certain qualifications.

Demello correctly argues that the expert witness only testified to the reasonableness of attorney Schwartz's hours and rates. The expert witness offered no testimony regarding any of the other attorneys and paralegals who worked on the case. There is no expert testimony to support the award of attorney's fees for work other than that performed by Schwartz. Accordingly, the attorney's fee order is vacated and this case is remanded for entry of an order awarding only those attorney's fees that were supported by the expert testimony.

Lesson learned?

If you're litigating attorney's fees and costs, a trial court ruling based on a solid evidentiary record is almost invincible on appeal. The linked-to case + the underlying statutory authority cited above should provide a solid road map for building that record. On the other hand, if your record has holes in it, you (and your client) may be in for a rude awakening on appeal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Payment of trustee attorneys' fees when defending breach-of-duty claims has been a hot topic over the last few years due to appellate decisions out of the 3rd and 4th DCA's that were decidedly non-trustee friendly [click here, here].  The Florida Bankers Association swung into action, proposing new legislation that would make it more difficult to cut off a trustee's access to trust funds when defending against a breach-of-duty claim. The end product is new F.S. 736.0802(10), which became effective July 1, 2008.

Access to trust funds to pay for litigation - vs. the substance of the claim - often determines the outcome of the case. If you're suing a trustee or defending a trustee, you need to be aware of this new legislation. Trustees also need to be aware of the new affirmative notice obligation created by this change in the law.

736.0802 Duty of loyalty.--

(10) Payment of costs or attorney's fees incurred in any proceeding from the assets of the trust may be made by the trustee without the approval of any person and without court authorization, unless the court orders otherwise as provided in paragraph (b).

(a) If a claim or defense based upon a breach of trust is made against a trustee in a proceeding, the trustee shall provide written notice to each qualified beneficiary of the trust whose share of the trust may be affected by the payment of attorney's fees and costs of the intention to pay costs or attorney's fees incurred in the proceeding from the trust prior to making payment. The written notice shall be delivered by sending a copy by any commercial delivery service requiring a signed receipt, by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, or as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for service of process. The written notice shall inform each qualified beneficiary of the trust whose share of the trust may be affected by the payment of attorney's fees and costs of the right to apply to the court for an order prohibiting the trustee from paying attorney's fees or costs from trust assets. If a trustee is served with a motion for an order prohibiting the trustee from paying attorney's fees or costs in the proceeding and the trustee pays attorney's fees or costs before an order is entered on the motion, the trustee and the trustee's attorneys who have been paid attorney's fees or costs from trust assets to defend against the claim or defense are subject to the remedies in paragraphs (b) and (c).

(b) If a claim or defense based upon breach of trust is made against a trustee in a proceeding, a party must obtain a court order to prohibit the trustee from paying costs or attorney's fees from trust assets. To obtain an order prohibiting payment of costs or attorney's fees from trust assets, a party must make a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or by proffering evidence that provides a reasonable basis for a court to conclude that there has been a breach of trust. The trustee may proffer evidence to rebut the evidence submitted by a party. The court in its discretion may defer ruling on the motion, pending discovery to be taken by the parties. If the court finds that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that there has been a breach of trust, unless the court finds good cause, the court shall enter an order prohibiting the payment of further attorney's fees and costs from the assets of the trust and shall order attorney's fees or costs previously paid from assets of the trust to be refunded. An order entered under this paragraph shall not limit a trustee's right to seek an order permitting the payment of some or all of the attorney's fees or costs incurred in the proceeding from trust assets, including any fees required to be refunded, after the claim or defense is finally determined by the court. If a claim or defense based upon a breach of trust is withdrawn, dismissed, or resolved without a determination by the court that the trustee committed a breach of trust after the entry of an order prohibiting payment of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to this paragraph, the trustee may pay costs or attorney's fees incurred in the proceeding from the assets of the trust without further court authorization.

(c) If the court orders a refund under paragraph (b), the court may enter such sanctions as are appropriate if a refund is not made as directed by the court, including, but not limited to, striking defenses or pleadings filed by the trustee. Nothing in this subsection limits other remedies and sanctions the court may employ for the failure to refund timely.

(d) Nothing in this subsection limits the power of the court to review fees and costs or the right of any interested persons to challenge fees and costs after payment, after an accounting, or after conclusion of the litigation.

(e) Notice under paragraph (a) is not required if the action or defense is later withdrawn or dismissed by the party that is alleging a breach of trust or resolved without a determination by the court that the trustee has committed a breach of trust.

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

Wagner, Vaughn, McLaughlin & Brennan, P.A. v. Kennedy Law Group, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2668801 (Fla. 2d DCA Jul 09, 2008)

Ever wonder why your friendly neighborhood plaintiff's lawyer gets a bit tense when he hires you to get his client appointed personal representative . . . PRONTO! Easy, because under F.S. 768.20 only the PR has standing to bring a wrongful death suit on behalf of the estate and the survivors. If your guy's client doesn't get appointed PR, he's out of the game.

But just because the PR is the only party with standing to prosecute the liability phase of the wrongful-death suit, doesn't mean the survivors may not need independent counsel when it comes time to litigating the damages phase of the case and apportioning damages among them. Under F.S. 768.22 the jury apportions damages among the survivors if there's a trial. If there's no trial, then the survivors can hire their own lawyer to negotiate their own individual share of the damages payout to the extent there's a conflict of interest between them and the PR.

With that background in mind the following excerpt from the linked-to case should make sense. In this case two firms were litigating entitlement to the contingency fee resulting from $1.23 million in settlement proceeds. The 2d DCA awarded 100% of the fee solely to the PR's counsel because there was NO conflict of interest between the PR and the survivors when it came time to divvying up the damages pie. Here's how the 2d DCA explained its ruling:

As we stated previously, when survivors have a conflict of interest with the personal representative, the attorney for the personal representative is precluded from collecting fees out of the survivors' portions of the recovery. Wiggins, 850 So.2d at 450. In this case, the probate court denied the Wagner firm's objection to KLG's request for fees based on its determination that Larry and Robert did not have a competing claim or conflict of interest with Gary. The Wagner firm argues that the probate court's finding on this issue is erroneous because “[t]he record contains compelling and uncontroverted evidence of a deep-seated divide between Gary, on the one hand, and Larry and Robert on the other, which came to the fore as a result of their parents' tragic deaths.” The Wagner firm argues that KLG was placed on notice of the conflict when the Wagner firm objected to the one-third apportionment of the bodily injury settlement and attempted to remove Gary as the personal representative.

It is true that the Wagner firm's objection to the apportionment of the bodily injury settlement would have established a conflict of interest between Larry and KLG had it been pursued. However, Larry abandoned his objection to the apportionment after his petition to remove Gary was dismissed. While there was certainly a potential conflict of interest between Larry and Robert and KLG, an actual conflict never arose because Larry and Robert never objected to the amount or apportionment of the UM settlement. Larry and Robert may have believed that the settlement was a bit low and that they were entitled to a greater portion of the settlement proceeds, but they waived any objection to the settlement by accepting their equal shares.

*   *   *   *   *

As the Fourth District has stated, “counsel retained individually by survivors, and not by the personal representative, cannot expect to be compensated for work on those aspects of the case on which counsel for the personal representative has no conflict of interest.” In re Estate of Catapane, 759 So.2d at 11 n. 1. Because the Wagner firm did not perform any work on any aspect of the case in which KLG had a conflict of interest, the probate court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award the Wagner firm a share of the attorney's fees in this case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hirchert v. Hirchert Family Trust, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2695897 (Fla. 5th DCA Jul 11, 2008)

California constructive-trust judgment:

This case started in California where, after a two-day bench trial, the trial court found that a California trustee had breached his fiduciary duties by wrongfully withdrawing trust funds, which were then used to buy a house for himself and his wife in California. After the trustee died, his widow sold their California home, moved to Florida, and bought a Florida home with the sales proceeds of the California residence. The California court entered a judgment imposing a constructive trust on the widow's Florida home.

The first issue on appeal was whether the California court had jurisdictional authority to enter a judgment imposing a constructive trust on Florida real property. The trial court said yes, based on the following reasoning, which was adopted verbatim by the 5th DCA:

The trial court analyzed the jurisdictional issue as follows:

The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, which entered the judgment in question in this matter, entered said judgment after a trial on the merits. Counsel for Defendant, JOHNEE ANN ALLE HIRCHERT actively participated in the trial. The California court, while not having in rem jurisdiction over the property that was situated in Florida did have in personam jurisdiction over the Defendant, JOHNEE ANN ALLE HIRCHERT.
....

A court of one state does not have the power to directly affect title to land physically located in another state. However, “[a] court of equity, having authority to act upon the person, may indirectly act upon real estate in another state, through the instrumentality of this authority over the person.” Fall v. Eastin (1909) 215 U.S. 1 at 8, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65 (Emphasis supplied) [sic]. “The court's decree does not operate directly upon the property or affect its title, but is made effectual through coercion of the defendant.” Groza-Vance v. Vance, 834 NE.2d 15 (Ohio App.2005) citing Fall at 10, 11 supra. See also MDO Development corporation v. Kelly, 735 F.Supp 591 (S.D.N.Y.1990)....

Counsel for the Defendant has raised the “local action rule.” Under such rule, “... court may not exercise in rem jurisdiction over property located outside its geographical territory.” Bauman v. Rayburn, 878 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (Emphasis in the original] [sic]. However, as long as in personam jurisdiction exists, relief may be granted even if it might incidentally affect real property. Bauman at 1274. In that the California court in this matter had in personam jurisdiction, the local action rule would not apply for the relief sought and subsequently obtained in this matter. See also Gardiner v. Gardiner, 705 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

While “... jurisdictional authority exists over the property only in the circuit where the land is situated,” this rule does not apply where a party, “... [seeks] equitable relief alleging, inter alia, resulting and constructive trust claims....” Ruth v. Department of Legal Affairs, 684 So.2d 181, 186 (Fla.1996). “The court's in personam jurisdiction alone provides the court with authority to determine the equitable rights of the parties.” Id. See also General Electric Capital Corporation v. Advance Petroleum, Inc., d/b/a World Fuel Services of Florida and World Fuel Services, 660 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) [In personam jurisdiction comports with the mandates of the Federal and Florida Due Process Clause.]

(Emphasis in original). We agree with the trial judge's analysis.

Was Florida's homestead creditor protection pierced? Probably NOT

As I've written before, under Florida law the circumstances permitting the imposition of an equitable lien on homestead property are extremely narrow [click here, here]. Apparently hoping to avoid getting sucked into the twilight zone that is Florida homestead jurisprudence, the trial court attempted to punt on this issue as follows:

The trial court went on to note:

Defendant has also raised the issue of her homestead status of the Florida property. Here, the property is not being conveyed or the title changed or transferred. No change in legal ownership has been ordered. A constructive trust has been established by the California court and the legal document so establishing the constructive trust is being filed in the Florida courts. Homestead is not a matter before the Court at this point.[FN 1]

[FN 1]. It may be that at a later point when, and if, there is an attempt to convey the property an issue may arise as to the validity of the Homestead status based, in part, on the source of the funds used to purchase the property. LaBelle v. LeBelle, [sic] 624 So.2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) [.] That issue is one for another day and another court.

Nice try, but no cigar. The 5th DCA remanded the case back to the trial court to decide the homestead issue:

We believe that the homestead issue raised in Ann's declaratory judgment count was properly before the court. The domesticated California judgment is creating homestead issues which the trial judge needs to resolve. We therefore remand for a judicial determination of homestead status and the legal effect, if any, of the California judgment on Ann's property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Jonathan Klick of the Florida State University College of Law and Robert H. Sitkoff of Harvard Law School just published an outstanding article entitled Agency Costs, Charitable Trusts, and Corporate Control: Evidence from Hershey's Kiss-Off.  What this article does well is "crunch the numbers" to answer the sort of open-ended question trusts-and-estates litigators face all the time:

Is a particular investment strategy in the "best interests" of the trust's beneficiaries?

Crunching the Numbers:

Being non-math types, lawyers and judges often shy away from the type of quantitative, objectively-verifiable, empirical analyses employed in this article. Whether you agree or disagree with the findings, the value of this approach to any contested trust proceeding should be self evident.  Rather than relying on the judge's gut to figure out if a "prudent investor" would invest trust assets in a certain way under the terms of a specific trust agreement within the context of a specific class of trust beneficiaries, hire a finance whiz to crunch the numbers and demonstrate, in an objectively-verifiable and quantitative manner, which option results in the best overall economic benefit for the trust's beneficiaries. Once the legal wrangling over how to define the operative terms is done, everyone should step back and let the finance gurus quantitatively fill in the blanks.

Trustees Lose PR Battle:

The controversy surrounding the Hershey School Trust's decision to diversify its trust holdings by attempting to sell its controlling stake in the Hershey Company (thus potentially putting a lot of people in Hershey, Pennsylvania out of work) and subsequently backing out of the deal (thus depriving the trust's beneficiaries of a control-premium windfall profit estimated to be as high as $1 billion) is often cited as a terrible example of "politics" trumping sound sound fiduciary decision making.  For more on the political back-story of this case read The Hershey Power Play in Trusts & Estates Magazine by Pennsylvania attorney Christopher H. Gadsden, and Daniel Gross's piece in Slate entitled Hershey Barred, whose subtitle says it all: How Pennsylvania officials screwed poor kids out of $1 billion by stopping the sale of the candy-maker.

However, blaming the politicians is way too easy. They were (not surprisingly) simply responding to legitimate concerns raised by their constituents. The board of directors of the Hershey School Trust deserves equal blame.  The general public holds non-profit entities to a higher civic standard than for-profit companies, which means trustees of high-profile charitable trusts need to address any potential contested proceeding with two sets of professionals: lawyers and litigation-public-relations experts [click here, here].  It's obvious the board of directors of the Hershey School Trust was blindsided by the "politics" of this deal, and bungled it terribly  .  .  .  to the detriment of the poor children they have a fiduciary duty to serve.

If someone from the trust's board of directors had reached out to the key political players from the start, involved local civic groups in the decision-making process, and preempted any local bad press with a smart PR campaign using quantitatively-verifiable facts developed using the analytical tools employed in the linked-to law review article, the end result might have been very different.  For example, if the Hershey School Trust's upside from the deal was going to be around $1 billion, its board of directors could have easily set aside $100 million (or some other mind boggling large figure) for worker retraining, community redevelopment, generous termination packages for all fired employees (not just the top brass), etc. The trustees would have come out looking like heroes, and still vastly improved the economic well-being of trust's beneficiaries. That would have been a good deal for everyone.

Blogging credit:

Credit goes to the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog for bringing the linked-to law review article to my attention in this blog post.

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

Klem v. Espejo-Norton, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2511276 (Fla. 3d DCA Jun 25, 2008)

What do you do if an heir shows up after the probate proceeding has been closed? You can try to reopen the estate under F.S. 733.903.  But what if that doesn't work, then what? The 3d DCA answers that question in this case by first suggesting that the plaintiff pursue a "constructive trust" theory, then explaining the quasi in rem jurisdictional basis for this type of claim.

Constructive Trust

The linked-to opinion is actually the second time this case has come before the 3d DCA.  In the first appeal the 3d DCA affirmed a probate court's order refusing to reopen a probate proceeding so that a newly-discovered heir could claim her share of the estate. But in a specially concurring opinion the court suggested that the "lost heir" sue for her share of the estate's assets under a constructive trust theory.  Here's an excerpt from the first appellate opinion in this case, Espejo-Norton v. Estate of Merry, 869 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), where the court explained the constructive trust theory:

This is a fascinating case in which one of the two goddaughters who were the named residual devisees of the testatrix's $400,000.00-plus estate turned up several years after the estate had been closed, after she had quite erroneously been declared dead by the circuit court, and after all the proceeds had been distributed to the other devisee. Because, insofar as the record shows, diligent, although futile, efforts had been expended to find her, I must agree with affirmance of the order before us denying her motion to reopen the estate.

It should be pointed out, however, a separate action may now be successfully maintained against the other devisee to impose a constructive trust upon the half of the estate that that devisee received, but which in law and equity belongs to the appellant. As the Restatement says:

§ 126. Rights of Intended Payee or Grantee. Business Transaction.

(1) Where a person has paid money or transferred property to another in the erroneous belief, induced by a mistake of fact, that he owed a duty to the other so to do, whereas such duty was owed to a third person, the transferee, unless a bona fide purchaser, is under a duty of restitution to the third party.

* * *

Illustrations:

2. A, administrator of B's estate, pays money out of the assets of the estate to C, B's brother, whom both A and C believe to be B's sole relative. Later D, B's son and next of kin, believed to be dead, appears. D is entitled to restitution from C. (e.s.)

Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction

Based on the 3d DCA's friendly advice in the first appeal, the plaintiff, a California resident, sued the defendant, a Maryland resident, in a Miami-Dade County court house seeking to impose a constructive trust on a brokerage account in Broward County, which is where some of the subject probate funds had been deposited.  Obviously the Miami court didn't have in personam jurisdiction over the California defendant, and the court didn't have general in rem jurisdiction over the estate assets because the estate had already been closed.  What the Florida court did have was quasi in rem jurisdiction over the brokerage account. Confused yet?

Reading the 3d DCA's linked-to opinion wont exactly clarify things for you. It's basically a series of long string cites and close to zero discussion by the 3d DCA of the point it was trying to make. If you're ever confronted with a quasi in rem issue in the future take the time to read a March 2008 Florida Bar Journal article cited by the 3d DCA in its opinion entitled Florida's Third Species of Jurisdiction. Written by Tampa trial judge Scott Stephens, this article does an excellent job of actually explaining why the 3d DCA ruled the right way in this case.

The logic underlying the 3d DCA's ruling on the quasi in rem issue in this case can be broken down as follows:

1. A Florida circuit court has authority over any person or item of property located anywhere in the state of Florida. In other words, a circuit court in Key West has jurisdictional authority to enter a judgment determining ownership of a bank account located in Key West, or "next door" in Miami, or across the state in Pensacola.
   
2. The phrase "territorial jurisdiction" is used as a stand in for the word venue in quasi-in-rem cases. Which means just like with venue, you can waive an objection to territorial-jurisdiction if not properly asserted at the beginning of your case. But just because your case may end up getting litigated in the wrong venue/territory somewhere within the State of Florida, doesn't mean your Miami-Dade County judge lacks "jurisdictional" authority to enter a judgment affecting a bank account in Broward County.
   
3. What's confusing about all this is the use of the same word "jurisdiction" to mean different things within a single case. This is the key point made by Judge Stephens in his exceptional Florida Bar Journal article.

Here's how the 3d DCA "explained" the territorial-jurisdiction point in the linked-to opinion:

As Escudero indicates, the fact that the res in question is not within the Eleventh Circuit makes no difference. This is because the issue, properly considered, is not one of subject matter jurisdiction, which may not be waived. . . . Rather, it involves a question of “territorial jurisdiction,” as it is sometimes called in this context, which may be waived by a failure properly to assert it below, as it was in this case.

Bonus material:

Judge Stephens provides the following factoids in footnote 1 to his article:

A sample of 7,490 district court of appeal cases using the term “jurisdiction” was taken through Lexis-Nexis on August 10, 2007. Cases using the term “subject matter jurisdiction” were counted separately, as were cases using one of several variants of personal or in personam jurisdiction.  .  .  .  The various subspecies of subject matter and personal jurisdiction collectively add up to less than one percent of the appearances of “jurisdiction” in the district court of appeal cases: pendent jurisdiction, three cases; ancillary, one; in rem, 43; quasi-in-rem, six.

If only 6 appellate decisions out of 7,490 mention the phrase "quasi in rem jurisdiction" (less than one-tenth of 1%), is it any wonder these sorts of questions make most lawyers break out in hives?

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

Hoegh v. Estate of Johnson, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2605068 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. Jul 03, 2008)

In this case there's no question whom the courts considered to be the villain of the story.

According to the trial court Hoegh, the appellant and pro se litigant, attempted to "perpetrate a fraud on the court" by knowingly seeking to have a forged will admitted to probate. According to the 5th DCA, Hoegh didn't do herself any favors on appeal, acting in "bad faith" because her appeal failed to raise any justiciable issue of law. And just to make sure everyone got the point, the 5th DCA charged the estate's reasonable appellate attorney's fees against Hoegh through application of the "inequitable conduct" doctrine.

So far so good for the estate.  But then the 5th DCA reversed the trial court's award of $37,125 in appellate fees, loping off $15,125 of the trial court's original fee award (a 41% reduction)!! So what happened? Sometimes a slam dunk can work against you. On appeal the court asked why the estate was claiming 135 hours worth of attorney time (over three weeks of full-time labor) on an appeal that was baseless? Apparently the estate couldn't come up with a convincing answer.

Notwithstanding Hoegh's misconduct, the estate is only entitled to recover reasonable appellate attorney's fees. Here, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(c), Hoegh has filed a motion to review the trial court's award of $37,125 for appellate attorney's fees. (It appears that the trial court's award of $37,125 was based on multiplying 135 hours by an hourly rate of $275 .) She contends that this award was excessive. We agree.

The amount of appellate attorney's fees awarded by a trial court is reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard. Pellar v. Granger Asphalt Paving, Inc., 687 So.2d 282, 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). However, an appellate court has a greater ability to review the reasonableness of an appellate attorney's fee award than an award for trial court work because the legal work was done in the appellate court. Id. at 285; see also G.H. Johnson Const. Co. v. A.P.G. Elec., Inc., 656 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Dalia v. Alvarez, 605 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). As previously noted, Hoegh did not raise any justiciable issue of law in her appeal. No oral argument was held. The primary issue presented to us was whether there was substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's decision. We find no error in the trial court's determination that $275 per hour was a reasonable rate for the estate's attorneys. However, after a thorough review of the record, we find that it was an abuse of discretion to find that more than 80 hours of attorney time was reasonably necessary for this appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's award of appellate attorney's fees and remand for entry of an order awarding the estate appellate attorney's fees of $22,000.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Staup v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2598005 (S.D.Fla. Jun 27, 2008)

The substantive issue in this case is pretty simple: if you lose in state court, you don't get another bite at the apple by simply re-filing your same case in federal court. More technically speaking the plaintiff's lawsuit was dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which I recently wrote about here in connection with a contested guardianship proceeding.

Poster child for mandatory arbitration clauses:

When you read the background facts of this case, the substantive ruling becomes almost meaningless. This opinion is just that last stop for a litigation train involving this trust that has been rolling along for over 10 years! A mandatory arbitration clause in the trust agreement, as expressly authorized by F.S. 731.401 [click here for form clauses], wouldn't have eliminated all of the litigation involving this trust, but I'm sure it would have dramatically reduced its scope and cost. Here's how the court described the "back-story" on this case:

By way of background, Plaintiff filed more than thirty state court actions dating as far back as 1996 with the same operative facts in Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County Florida. That court found it necessary to order a permanent injunction restricting Plaintiff from filing civil actions relating to cases involving the Mary Staup Estate in the state of Florida. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed at least eight federal court lawsuits on similar operative facts in the Middle District of Florida. Each of these lawsuits was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Note to estate planners: include mandatory arbitration clauses in your trust agreements.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine:

Here's how the court explained its application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to this case:

Next, Defendant argues the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the Court from having jurisdiction over Counts I and II, as a state court previously rendered judgments for the claims raised in these two counts. Plaintiff responds by concluding that the underlying state court judgment is void, resulting in the Rooker-Feldman doctrine being inapplicable. Plaintiff goes on to acknowledge that although the claims in Counts I and II have previously been litigated, he has never plead the postal service fraud count. (Plaintiff's Response [DE 20], p. 7.)

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that no federal courts, other than the United States Supreme Court, have the authority to review final judgments of state courts. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F .3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir.2001). This doctrine encompasses claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with a state court judgment. Id. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the federal district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 281 (2005).

Essentially, Plaintiff is asking the Court to invalidate the state court actions by ruling that the state court judgment is void. Additionally, the postal fraud claim has been dismissed, making this action identical to the previous state court claim. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, as Plaintiff seeks a de facto appeal of a previously litigated state court matter. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to Count I and II of the Complaint will be granted.

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

Julia v. Russo, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2596324 (Fla. 4th DCA Jul 02, 2008)

The 4th DCA reversed itself on an important point involving joint bank accounts, withdrawing this opinion and replacing it with the linked-to opinion above. The issue on rehearing was a simple evidentiary burden-shifting question:

If a decedent funded a bank account 100% with his own funds, then put his girlfriend's name on the account, does the girlfriend have to prove the decedent intended to make a gift to her of a 50% interest in the account, or does the decedent's estate have to prove that the decedent did NOT intended to make this gift?

The first time around, relying on two divorce cases to resolve this probate dispute (??!!), the 4th DCA said girlfriend bore the burden of proof.  Girlfriend filed a motion for rehearing, took another crack at the issue . . . and won!  On rehearing the 4th DCA completely reversed its prior ruling. This time around the 4th DCA sided with the girlfriend, shifting the burden of proof over on to the estate.

The next time your involved in litigation involving a joint bank account owned by tenants in common, take another look at this case. Unless the facts are a slam dunk for one side or the other, who bears the burden of proof will probably by the single most important factor in determining who wins or loses the case. That's usually the sort of thing you want to know up front, not once you're six months into the case and going down in a ball of flames.

Here's how the 4th DCA articulated the rule:

On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that there was no presumption of a gift of personal property because Florida law provides that when a joint bank account is created with the funds of one person, there is a presumption of a gift to the other person which may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. We agree.

Initially, the trial court's reliance on Crouch and Grieco is misplaced. Both Grieco and Crouch were decisions which addressed the issue of whether certain assets were marital or nonmarital under section 61.075(5), Florida Statutes (2005). The principles involved in that determination are inapplicable here.

The issue here is how to determine what share a tenant in common is entitled to. “In absence of evidence to the contrary, co-tenants are presumed to owe [sic] equal undivided interests. Levy v. Docktor, 185 B.R. 378, 381 (S.D.Fla.1995). “[U]pon the death of a cotenant, the deceased cotenant's interest in the property subject to the tenancy in common passes to his or her heirs, and not to the surviving cotenant.” 12 Fla. Jur.2d Cotenancy and Partition § 4 (1998). See, e.g., Reinhardt v. Diedricks, 439 So.2d 936, 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Taking title to property in joint names creates a presumption of a gift which may be rebutted. Sullivan v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 230 So.2d 18, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). See also O'Donnell v. Marks, 823 So.2d 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (taking title as tenants in common is an indication of an intention to make a beneficial gift of an undivided interest to the other party); Mercurio v. Urban, 552 So.2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (stocks owned as tenants in common entitles co-owner to presumption of gift).

The trial court did not apply the presumption of a gift in appellant's favor but instead erroneously required her to prove the decedent intended to make a gift. We therefore find it necessary to reverse and remand for the trial court to determine if there was clear and convincing evidence presented which rebutted the presumption of a gift.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

If you're representing a plaintiff in an undue-influence or testamentary-capacity case, one of your first challenges is mapping out the questions you'll be asking when you depose the lawyer who drafted the will or trust being challenged.  If you're representing the estate defending against this challenge, you'll want to know how best to build a deposition record that dissuades the challenger from proceeding with his or her case, or encourages an early settlement on favorable terms.  Why is the deposition so important? Because the vast majority of contested probate proceedings settle before trial, so your depositions may be the only "trial" you'll ever have, and will certainly tilt the negotiating leverage to one side or the other in any settlement negotiations.

And lest we forget our estate-planning brethren, if you're an estate planner and for some reason you believe the estate planning documents you're working on are likely to end up being challenged, then you'll want to be especially sure that [a] your client is competent and not the victim of undue influence and [b] that you build a record documenting your conclusions.

In all of these circumstances a good checklist of questions is worth its weight in gold.  And a good starting point for building this kind of checklist is a recent article in the American Journal of Psychiatry entitled Assessment of Testamentary Capacity and Vulnerability to Undue Influence, by Kenneth I. Shulman, M.D., F.R.C.P.C., Carole A. Cohen, M.D., F.R.C.P.C., Felice C. Kirsh, LL.B., Ian M. Hull, B.A., LL.B., and Pamela R. Champine, J.D., LL.M.  Here's an excerpt:

Documentation for Assessment of Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence

In the absence of a validated assessment instrument, we propose that in addition to the traditional Banks v. Goodfellow criteria, the following issues should be addressed and documented in a forensic assessment, whether it is contemporaneous or retrospective:

1. Rationale for any dramatic changes or significant deviations from the pattern identified in prior wills or previous consistently expressed wishes regarding disposition of assets.
2. The appreciation of the consequences and impact of a particular distribution, especially if it deviates from or excludes "natural" beneficiaries, such as close family members or spouses.
3. Clarification of concerns about potential beneficiaries who are excluded from the will or bequeathed lower amounts than might have been expected—that is, ruling out the presence of a specific delusion or overvalued idea that influences the distribution.
4. Evidence of the presence of a specific neurologic or mental disorder that may affect cognition, judgment, or impulse control.
5. Evidence of behavioral disturbances or psychiatric symptoms at the time of the execution of a will, for example, behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia such as agitation, impulsiveness, disinhibition, aggression, hallucination, and delusions.
6. The emotional/psychological milieu in which the testator lives, with specific reference to conflicts or tensions within the family, documenting the complexity and conflictual level of situation-specific factors.
7. The testator’s understanding and appreciation of any conflicts or tensions in his or her environment.
8. Evidence of a pathological or dependent relationship with a formal or informal caregiver, such as a younger woman who offers comfort and reassurance or plants seeds of suspiciousness toward family or friends.
9. Evidence of inconsistency in expressed wishes or an inability to communicate a clear, consistent wish with respect to the distribution of assets; for example, frequent will changes are sometimes made in a desperate attempt to garner care, support, or comfort at a time when the testator feels increasingly vulnerable or threatened.
10. Any of the indications of undue influence.

Specific questions posed to the testator may help in elucidating and probing the relationship between task-specific and situation-specific factors:

1. Can you tell me the reason(s) that you decided to make changes in your will?
2. Why did you decide to divide the estate in this particular fashion?
3. Do you understand how individual A might feel, having been excluded from the will or having been given a significantly less amount than previously expected or promised?
4. Do you understand the economic implications for individual B of this particular distribution in your will?
5. Can you tell me about the important relationships in your family and others close to you?
6. Can you describe the nature of any family or personal disputes or tensions that may have influenced your distribution of assets?

When a retrospective assessment is being conducted, assiduous review of medical records, examinations for discovery, and selective interviews of informants are needed to cast light on these issues.

Another excellent resource for those brave souls willing to delve into the murky waters of a testamentary-capacity lawsuit is a piece in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law entitled Common Pitfalls in the Evaluation of Testamentary Capacity by Harvard Medical School Professor of Psychiatry Thomas G. Gutheil, MD.

Blogging credit:

Credit goes to Pennsylvania trusts and estates lawyer and expert witness Patti S. Spencer for bringing the linked-to articles to my attention in this post on her Pennsylvania Fiduciary Litigation Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mercurio v. Headrick, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2434193 (Fla. 1st DCA Jun 18, 2008)

The finality of death is the sort of thing most people can figure out pretty much on their own. Unfortunately, once you walk into the alternate reality of litigation, just because your opponent is dead doesn't mean your case is over.  In the linked-to case the joint owners of a piece of property were suing each other for partition. The twist here is that they owned the property as joint tenants with right of survivorship.  So when one side died, "bingo" the survivor automatically owned the entire property, end of story, game over. Only problem is that the trial court didn't see it that way, so now we have an appellate decision that reiterates property law 101:

The trial court ordered the parties to mediation in September 2006, but they apparently did not reach an agreement over their lingering disputes before Mr. Headrick died in late October. Ms. Mercurio moved for summary judgment on the ground that the joint tenancy remained intact at Mr. Headrick's death, and that she was entitled to an undivided interest in the property as his joint tenant with a right of survivorship. Both the original judge and his successor judge denied Ms. Mercurio's motion, finding that Ms. Mercurio's admissions in her answer signified the parties' mutual intent to partition the property. The successor judge ultimately rendered a final order partitioning the property and directing the parties to sell it at a private sale. Ms. Mercurio appeals that order.

The question in this case is whether a pending action to partition a joint tenancy with right of survivorship survives one joint tenant's death. We hold that such an action does not survive the death of a joint tenant and, accordingly, absent a final judgment of partition at the tenant's death, the action is abated, because the surviving tenant receives full title to the property, consistent with the right of survivorship.

This issue is one of first impression in Florida. Other jurisdictions, however, have confronted the question, and we adopt their common approach which we find persuasive and logical.
.     .     .     .     .

This approach comports with the established and undisputed rule in Florida that only a complete, final conveyance or disposition of jointly held property severs a joint tenancy with right of survivorship.  .  .  .   This case, as many divorce cases, involves a dispute over the disposition of jointly held property. In the case of a joint tenancy, the death of one party resolves that dispute by operation of law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Berkow v. Isaevna, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2511272 (Fla. 3d DCA Jun 25, 2008)

Lest we forget, the 3d DCA reminds us all once again that a summary judgment hearing isn't a trial.

The Appellants, Counter-Petitioners in a dispute over an estate that has escheated to the State of Florida, appeal an order that denied their motion for summary judgment, granted the Appellees/Petitioners final summary judgment, and awarded Petitioners the escheated funds. We reverse.

The record demonstrates that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Appellees were legitimate heirs of the decedent. Hence, the court erred in granting summary judgment. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Copeland v. Fla. New Invs., Corp., 905 So.2d 979, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). The Appellants had presented affidavits asserting that all of the decedent's heirs above them in the statutory hierarchy had died, § 732.103, Fla. Stat. (2004), arguably entitling them to the funds. They had also presented affidavits challenging the legitimacy of the Appellees as heirs. These issues of fact cannot be resolved on summary judgment. Moreover, on summary judgment the court cannot weigh testimony or make factual findings. Deakter v. Menendez, 830 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Therefore, the court erred in entering the orders on appeal here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ehrlich v. Severson, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2512375 (Fla. 4th DCA Jun 25, 2008)

Although the 4th DCA reversed the probate judge's ruling in this case, it did recognize that there's a glitch in the statute governing the payment of examining committees.  If a large part of your practice focuses on guardianship matters (mine doesn't) and you're a member of the Florida Bar's Elder Law Section or RPPTL Section, responding to the 4th DCA's request for a legislative fix sounds like a great project to run with.

Gladys Ehrlich was the subject of a guardianship petition which was denied. She appeals an order which requires her to pay the fees of the examining committee.

Although we acknowledge that payment of the examining committee's fees should not be contingent on the outcome of the competency determination, we agree with appellant that the procedural statute for determining incapacity does not make the potential ward responsible for examining committee fees where the guardianship petition is dismissed or denied. See § 744.331(7), Fla. Stat. (2007).[FN1]

[FN1.] We note that the subject statute formerly provided for examining committee fees to be paid from “the general fund of the county in which the petition was filed.” § 744.331(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). However, the 1996 amendment to the statute appears to have eliminated the county's liability except in cases where the ward is indigent. This leaves a gap in responsibility for payment of the fees where a good faith petition is denied or dismissed. The Legislature needs to specify who pays the examining committees fees in this circumstance.

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

Sarhan v. Rothenberg, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2474645 (S.D.Fla. Jun 17, 2008)

Dr. Robert Sarhan, on behalf of himself and his mother, Yvonne Sarhan, filed suit in Miami's U.S. District Court against one of this city's most experienced and esteemed probate judges, Arthur Rothenberg, alleging that his mother's constitutional rights had been violated when Judge Rothenberg adjudicated his mother incapacitated and appointed her a guardian.  Apparantly unhappy with the fact that Judge Rothenberg's ruling was upheld on appeal by the 3d DCA, Dr. Sarhan sought another bite at the apple before a federal court.  And just to make sure everyone knew he meant business, Dr. Sarhan's federal claim also sought $100 million in punitive damages.

This case highlights two themes I've written about before.  First, vexatious pro se litigants are simply a fact of life in probate litigation and counsel/judges need to know how to manage that problem, because it's not going away [click here, here].  Second, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 decision limiting the scope of the "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction is likely to trigger a surge in probate-related matters (like the linked-to case) ending up in federal court [click here, here].  Again, probate counsel need to know how to manage this jurisdictional issue as well.

No, you can't relitigate your guardianship case in federal court:

The linked-to opinion is an excellent road map for probate counsel trying to figure out when (if ever) litigation related to contested guardianship proceedings can end up in federal court.  Most of us would automatically assume this case was silly to begin with (which probably explains why Dr. Sarhan filed it pro se), but not many could articulate exactly why, as a matter of jurisdictional jurisprudence, you'd get laughed out of court for pulling a prank like this.  After this case, you'll know why.

Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction:

Under the probate-exception to federal jurisdiction, a U.S. District Court is preculded from adjudicating disputes having to do with property that is in the custody of a state probate court.  Here's how the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the rule in 2006:

.  .  .  when one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a res, a second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res. Thus, the probate exception reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent's estate; it also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. But it does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction.

Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12, 126 S.Ct. 1735, 164 L.Ed.2d 480 (2006) (emphasis added).

In this case the Miami U.S. District Court applied this general rule to a contested guardianship proceeding relying heavily on an opinion out of the U.S. 7th Circuit penned by none other than Judge Richard Posner, probably one of the U.S.'s most prolific and well-known legal theorists (and blogger!).  Here's your road map:

As explained by Judge Posner in Struck v. Cook County Pub. Guardian, 508 F.3d 858, 860 (7th Cir.2007), a case with very similar facts to the Petition before this Court, proceedings to resolve disputes over the administration of a incompetent's estate are still in rem in character. “That is, they are fights over a property or a person in the court's control.” Id. The Petition is an example of a case falling squarely within the probate exception as clarified by the Supreme Court in Marshall. Dr. Sarhan requests this Court to reverse the orders of the probate court and to return all assets and property distributed pursuant to the guardianship to him. (See D.E. 8 at 15.) These are not matters that are “outside the confines” of the state probate court's supervision of Yvonne Sarhan's guardianship. As such, Judge Posner's analysis of the application of the probate exception in Stroud is directly on point here:

The res-the plaintiff's mother-is in the control of the guardian appointed by the state court, and decisions concerning the plaintiff's right of access to his mother and to her assets, her records, and her mail are at the heart of the guardian's responsibilities and are supervised by the court that appointed him ... [P]laintiff is seeking to remove into the federal court the res over which a state court is exercising control. That is the sort of maneuver that the probate/domestic-relations exception is intended to prevent.

508 F.3d at 860.

Rooker-Feldman doctrine:

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a United States District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review final judgments of a state court.  If you don't like a state-court ruling, then your options are to appeal up through to the Florida Supreme Court and from there the U.S. Supreme Court, but you can't simply walk across the street to your local federal court house and ask for a do-over.

In this case Judge Rothenberg's guardianship ruling had already been affirmed per currium by the 3d DCA before Dr. Sarhan filed his federal claim.  Rather than going up the appellate court chain, Dr. Sarhan simply refiled his case in the Miami U.S. District Court.  Wrong answer.  Here's how the magistrate judge in the linked-to opinion applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to this case:

As was the case in the Seventh Circuit's probate exception decision, Struck v. Cook County Public Guardian, there is also persuasive precedent for the application of the Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional doctrine to a guardianship proceeding. The Tenth Circuit's recent decision in Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir.2007), stands squarely for the proposition that a pro se litigant in Dr. Sarhan's position cannot obtain a do-over in federal court against the judges and interested persons in a state court guardianship proceeding that has been finally adjudicated. The Court relied primarily on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine:

To [petitioner] this means that having lost in probate court, she cannot file a federal complaint seeking review and reversal of the unfavorable judgment. Even if the probate court's decision was wrong, that does not make its judgment void, but merely leaves it “open to reversal or modification in an appropriate and timely appellate proceeding.” ... Nearly all of [petitioner's] claims against the individual defendants assert injuries based on the probate court's judgments and, for her to prevail, would require the district court to review and reject those judgments. As such, her claims are inextricably intertwined with the probate court judgments and are therefore barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Id. at 1146-1147 (quoting Exxon-Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454).

The very same type of claims raised in Mann have been raised here, over the same type of guardianship proceeding that was finally adjudicated in state court, and against the same defendant-the state court probate judge. Whatever merit Dr. Sarhan's claims may have, they are left for the Third District Court of Appeal or the Florida Supreme Court to decide. And if those state appellate courts fail to grant him the relief he seeks, Dr. Sarhan's sole remedy is to proceed by way of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, as per 28 U.S.C. § 1257. This District Court, however, has no power to consider whether Dr. Sarhan was right and whether Judge Rothenberg's judgments should be vacated or voided, as per 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, therefore, requires the dismissal of his Petition.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks

Reid v. Judea, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2356814 (Fla. 3d DCA Jun 11, 2008)

The linked-to opinion is interesting on several levels. 

1.  First, for reasons not explained, the probate court in this case denied a motion to disqualify trial counsel who was also submitting evidence in his capacity as drafter of the contested trust agreement. Here's the relevant excerpt:

[Beneficiaries of the trust] moved to disqualify [the trustee's] attorney, William Palmer, pointing to the fact that it was Palmer who had prepared the trust and its amendments for [the decedent/settlor]. On April 18, 2007, the trial court .  .  .  denied the motion to disqualify.

Appearing both as witness and trial attorney in the same proceeding is a big "no, no", for reasons I previously wrote about here.  I don't understand the trial court's ruling in this case.

2.  Second, a big issue in this case was whether new Florida Trust Code (FTC) section 736.04115  expanded pre-existing Florida law or merely codified pre-existing Florida law regarding a trustee's standing to bring a trust reformation action.

In ruling on this point the 3d DCA gave a huge amount of deference to the Legislative Staff Analysis of FTC.  This legislative history is basically a verbatim recitation of the scrivener's summary of the FTC prepared by none other than FSU Law Professor David F. Powell, whom I consider to be the single most authoritative source for understanding the new FTC [click here, here].  Hint: when in doubt, cite to Staff Analysis in all future trust litigation.

3.  Third, the 3d DCA asked for and received an amicus brief from the Florida RPPTL Section on the trustee standing issue in this case.  I would assume this bit of extra analytical "humph" should make this opinion especially persuasive authority for other Florida appellate courts addressing the same issue in the future.  Here's the "thank you" note from the 3d DCA for the amicus brief:

[FN3.] We asked the Real Property, Probate & Trust Law Section of The Florida Bar to file a brief as amicus addressing the question of a trustee's standing to pursue a claim for reformation [click here for copy]. We thank the section for taking the time to respond and to provide us with its input.

SUBSTANTIVE RULING

The substantive ruling in this case is significant: trustees have standing to prosecute trust reformation claims all on their own.  In the future, any time you have a trust reformation case where the person with the most to gain from the litigation is both trustee and beneficiary of the trust, you can bet that litigant will prosecute the claim in his or her capacity as trustee, not as a beneficiary.  Why?  Because as trustee you can use trust funds to finance your litigation expenses.  As beneficiary, you have to bear that expense out of your own pocket.  Yes, it's good to be the king.

Anyway, here's how the 3d DCA explained its ruling in this case:

Although [F.S. 736.04115] does not expressly mention trustees, its legislative history confirms that it is intended to encompass trustees whose authority to seek reformation has always been presumed to exist:

Reformation of a trust to cure mistakes is addressed in s.736.0415, F.S. Upon application of the trustee or an interested person, a court may reform the trust's terms to conform to the settlor's intentions [if] clear and convincing evidence proves that both the accomplishment of the settlor's intent and the terms of the trust were affected by a mistake. Reformation under the section is available for mistakes of law and of fact, whether or not the terms of the trust are ambiguous. Florida case law supports reformation to cure scrivener's errors. [See In re Estate of Robinson, 720 So.2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ] This section is broader, however, as it allows reformation for mistakes both in the expression and in the inducement.

Fla. S. Comm. On Banking & Ins., CS for SB 1170 (2006) Staff Analysis 20 (March 21, 2006) (emphasis added).

*     *     *     *     *

[I]t is clear to us that in cases involving a determination of the settlor's true intent, a trustee is an “interested person,” and an “interested person” has standing to seek reformation of a trust. For these reasons, we reject the general notion that a trustee lacks the standing to seek reformation of a trust either before or after enactment of section 736.0415. Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing Reid's reformation action and remand for further proceedings on this claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Coral Gables trusts-and-estates attorney Eric Virgil recently posted a PDF copy of Kelley's Homestead Paradigm on the list service for the RPPTL section of the Dade County Bar Association.  This handy chart was developed by one of the deans of Florida probate law, Rohan Kelley, and is exactly the type of resource I like to post on this blog for future reference.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hall v. Tungett, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2065802 (Fla. 2d DCA May 16, 2008)

Jurisdictional issues in probate proceedings are a source of recurring confusion for litigants and courts alike. If the court is proceeding based on its in rem jurisdiction, then under F.S. 731.301(2) all you need to do is serve anyone with a stake in the probate estate with "formal notice" under Probate Rule 5.040 and bingo, they're bound by the resulting court order to the extent of their interest in the estate. If the court is asserting in personam jurisdiction over a particular person (vs. in rem jurisdiction over the assets of the estate), then formal notice is not sufficient, in those cases a "summons"/service of process under Civil Procedure Rule 1.070 on the person you want to subject to court authority is necessary. Applying these basic concepts in a real life probate proceeding isn't always easy.

[A]  Procedural Road Map for Contesting Jurisdiction:

In this case the 2d DCA basically avoided stepping into the in rem vs. in personam jurisdictional thicket by concluding that the issue was forfeited at the trial court level because the side contesting jurisdiction failed to follow the procedural/evidentiary steps necessary to contest jurisdiction. The 2d DCA then goes on to provide an excellent procedural road map for probate counsel to follow if they ever find themselves in a dispute over jurisdiction.

Step 1: Did PR satisfy initial pleading requirement? YES

The PR, as plaintiff in this proceeding, bore the initial burden of pleading a sufficient basis to obtain jurisdiction over Ms. Hall. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989). According to the 2d DCA the PR met its pleading burden as follows:

.  .  .The statute defines a “distributee” as “a person who has received estate property from a personal representative or other fiduciary other than as a creditor or purchaser.” § 731.201(10). A distributee who improperly receives assets or funds from an estate may be compelled to return the assets or funds received. § 733.812.

    The PR's motion alleged that the brokerage account was titled in the decedent's name at the time of his death, was wrongfully distributed to Ms. Hall by Ms. Green as the predecessor personal representative, and was in Ms. Hall's possession. The motion claimed that the account and other property belonged to the Estate and must be returned to it, or if the account and property were no longer in Ms. Hall's possession then she had to return to the Estate the equivalent value, as well as any income earned on the assets or any gain received with respect to the assets.

    These allegations were sufficient to meet the PR's pleading requirement and to support service on Ms. Hall by the formal notice method permitted under section 731.301 and rule 5.040. Further, Ms. Hall did not contest the allegations by affidavit or other sworn proof. Thus, the court could properly find that it had jurisdiction over Ms. Hall to the extent of her interest in the Estate and to the extent that she received Estate property, other than as a creditor or purchaser, from Ms. Green.

Step 2: Did Ms. Hall contest the jurisdictional allegations by affidavit or other sworn proof? NO

Once the PR met its burden of pleading, the burden shifted to the person contesting jurisdiction to contest the essential jurisdictional allegations in the manner laid out in the following quoted text. Ms. Hall didn't comply with this procedure, so she effectively forfeited the issue (ouch!!).

In [Hilltopper Holding Corp. v. Estate of Cutchin, 955 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)], we explained as follows:

    If the plaintiff meets this pleading requirement, the burden shifts to the defendant to file a legally sufficient affidavit or other sworn proof that contests the essential jurisdictional facts of the plaintiff's complaint. To be legally sufficient, the defendant's affidavit must contain factual allegations which, if taken as true, show that the defendant's conduct does not subject him to jurisdiction.... If the defendant does not fully dispute the jurisdictional facts, the motion must be denied....

    If the defendant's affidavit does fully dispute the jurisdictional allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove by affidavit or other sworn proof that a basis for long-arm jurisdiction exists. If the plaintiff fails to come forward with sworn proof to refute the allegations in the defendant's affidavit and to prove jurisdiction, the defendant's motion to dismiss must be granted.

955 So.2d at 601-02 (citations omitted).

Step 3:  Is the litigation about whether the brokerage accounts are probate assets? NO

On appeal Ms. Hall argued that she shouldn't be subject to the probate court's in rem jurisdiction because she had not conceded that the brokerage account at issue in this case was in fact a probate asset. The 2d DCA basically said that's a fine argument at the trial court level, but gets you nowhere if you bring it up for the first time on appeal. Again, the 2d DCA skirted the substantive issue by basically ruling that Ms. Hall's failure to follow the proper procedure at trial resulted in her forfeiting this point.

[T]he PR alleged that Mr. Green owned the brokerage account at the time of his death, that upon his death the account was an Estate asset, and that as the initial personal representative Ms. Green improperly distributed the account proceeds to herself and Ms. Hall. Unlike the litigation in [Estate of Vernon v. Resolution Trust Corp., 608 So.2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)], the present litigation is not intended to determine whether the Estate, in the first instance, had any interest in the brokerage account; rather, the litigation is intended to recover an Estate asset that allegedly had been improperly distributed by Ms. Green. The allegations contained in the motion were not refuted by Ms. Hall in her response to the motion or by sworn evidence challenging the PR's factual allegations. Thus, based on the information before it, the probate court properly determined that service by formal notice was sufficient and that it could exercise jurisdiction over Ms. Hall.

[B]  Do you really need evidence in contested probate proceedings? YES!!

Ms. Hall got a partial win out of this appeal when the 2d DCA reversed the trial court's ruling on the contested brokerage account. The trial court apparently ruled based solely on argument of counsel, which is flattering to the attorneys, but scores a big zero on the evidence meter. Getting back to basics here, counsel's argument is NOT evidence. I've written before about probate court's deciding issues in the absence of evidence [click here]. Here's how the 2d DCA tackled the no-evidence issue in this appeal:

    Concerning that part of the probate court's order that directed Ms. Hall to transfer property to the PR, Ms. Hall argued to the probate court that once the court resolved the issue of jurisdiction, an evidentiary hearing would be necessary to resolve disputed issues of fact relating to the property and the relief sought by the PR. After hearing the arguments of counsel as to jurisdiction and service by formal notice, the probate court took these issues under advisement. Then, the court entered its order determining that service had been proper and that it had jurisdiction over Ms. Hall. In the same order, and without receiving any evidence, the court determined that the Estate was entitled to return of the property and directed Ms. Hall to transfer the property to the PR.

    As an interested person regarding the disputed property, Ms. Hall was entitled to be heard and to present evidence in support of her position. See Fleming v. Demps, 918 So.2d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reiterating that due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence “to determine who is the rightful owner of the funds and whether the funds should be administered as estate assets or otherwise distributed to the proper owner”). Moreover, the PR did not present any evidence establishing the Estate's entitlement to return of the property. Because the court acted without an evidentiary basis in directing Ms. Hall to transfer the property to the PR, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Parker v. Shullman, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 2038046 (Fla. 4th DCA May 14, 2008)

The linked-to opinion should be read by every trust beneficiary contemplating a lawsuit against his or her trustee. Not only is the beneficiary usually at a disadvantage in terms of litigation financing (the trustee can use trust assets to pay litigation costs, the beneficiary has to pay these costs out of pocket), courts will often give an enormous amount of deference to trustees, forgiving them small "technical" mistakes and erring on their side even when the trustee's actions are questionable or down right vindictive.

Back story:

This is the third!!! time the beneficiary in this case has sued her trustee, lost at trial, and lost again on appeal before the 4th DCA. Oh, and in the last two appeals the beneficiary tried to get the Florida Supreme Court to hear the case and was denied.

The first time around the 4th DCA agreed with the trial court's ruling that although certain actions taken by the trustee were "questionable and vindictive," they didn't rise to the level warranting removal as trustee. Parker v. Shullman, 843 So.2d 960, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 857 So.2d 197 (Fla.2003). The second time around the beneficiary sued her trustee based on objections to the compensation he was paying himself as CEO of the closely held business he was also administering as trustee of the trust. The trial court's dismissal with prejudice of that lawsuit was upheld on appeal because "the trustee's simultaneous participation in the company and management of the trusts was authorized by the text of the trusts." Parker v. Shullman, 906 So.2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 915 So.2d 1196 (Fla.2005).

Strike three: beneficiary 0 for 3 in litigation v. trustee:

The beneficiary fared no better this time around - her third trial - than she's done in the past. This time the issues at trial were the sorts of things that often bother beneficiaries. Again, this case is a good example of why patience may be wiser (and certainly cheaper) than suing.

1.   First complaint: trustee is taking too long to fund my trust:

This is the sort of complaint trusts and estates lawyers hear all the time. Even if the trustee is dragging his feet, if there's even a whiff of legitimacy to his delay, the court will likely side with the trustee. That's what the court did in this case, and here's why the 4th DCA affirmed that ruling:

    Section [736.05053] provides that the interests of all beneficiaries of a revocable trust are subject to the trustee's duty to pay the expenses of the administration and obligations of the grantor's estate. This court was presented with a similar situation in First Union National Bank v. Jones, 768 So.2d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), in which a trustee argued the trial court had erred in ordering disbursement of the entire corpus of a trust prior to the trust having the opportunity to seek its attorney's fees. This court reversed and remanded:

    Although a trust instrument directs termination of the trust and the distribution of the principal to the beneficiaries upon the settlor's death, the trustee cannot make complete distribution until provision has been made for all the expenses, claims and taxes the trust may be obligated to pay, and certainly not before these amounts have been fully ascertained. Moreover, when the trust is the beneficiary of the grantor's probate estate and is charged with the duty to pay the expenses, claims, and taxes imposed on the probate estate, the trustee cannot make complete distribution of the trust until the probate proceeding has been substantially concluded, which was not the case here.

First Union, 768 So.2d at 1215; see also Sheaffer v. Trask, 813 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(citing First Union in reversing trial court's grant of petition to distribute trust assets before authorizing trustee to pay trust debts and expenses); Merrill Lynch Trust Co. v. Alzheimer's Lifeliners Ass'n, 832 So.2d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(holding trial court abused its discretion in finding trustee in civil contempt for failing to distribute trust where it would not have been prudent to do so without an accounting).

2.   Second complaint: it's the trustee's fault the estate's stock portfolio lost money

Under Florida's Prudent Investor Rule, F.S. 518.11, whether a trustee has done his job right in managing the trust's stock portfolio is determined by looking at his investment "process," not his investment results. In other words, if the trustee takes all the steps a reasonable investor would take to properly manage his investment portfolio, it doesn't matter if the stocks crater in value, he's done his job. As the 4th DCA put it, "section 518.11 provides that the fiduciary's decisions are to be judged under the facts and circumstances at the time of the decision or action, and that the test is one of conduct rather than resulting performance." Based on the following evidence, the beneficiary lost on this point as well (note the emphasis on process, not performance):

    The testimony and evidence at trial supports the trial court's finding that Shullman's conduct with respect to the trust's complete portfolio of assets satisfied the Prudent Investor Rule and that appellant's objections were heavily based on hindsight rather than in the context of the existing facts and circumstances at the time. The trial court found that Shullman relied upon the advice of Comerica in managing the securities. Shullman testified at length about the steps he took following Barbara's death to interview and eventually retain an investment adviser and schedule meetings with them to advise them of the trust requirements, and that he followed their advice. The trial court's decision is therefore supported by competent substantial evidence in the record that Shullman hired Comerica to manage the securities and reasonably relied on them in his capacity as trustee.

3.   Third complaint: the trustee improperly paid his legal fees without getting the court's prior approval:

This loss must have really hurt. On this point, the beneficiary was clearly in the right - and yet she lost here too. Under F.S. 736.0802(10), a trustee who's being sued for breach of trust may be personally liable for damages, thus it's a conflict of interest to use trust funds to pay for the trustee's personal legal defense. The statute deals with this conflict of interest by requiring that trustees in this situation obtain court approval prior to using trust funds to pay for their legal defense. The 4th DCA upheld this interpretation of the statute just last year in J.P. Morgan Trust Co., N.A. v. Siegel, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2710957 (Fla. 4th DCA Sep 19, 2007).

On this issue the 4th DCA agreed with the beneficiary and reversed the trial court's ruling absolving the trustee from the obligation of obtaining court approval prior to paying for his personal legal defense with trust assets. But having given with one hand, the 4th DCA took with the other by simply giving the trustee a free "do over":

[I]n accordance with Siegel, we hold that the action objecting to the compensation Shullman paid himself as CEO of Sportswear put Shullman in a position of conflict under the previous version of section 737.403(2), Florida Statutes, in effect at the time. We therefore reverse on this issue without prejudice to Shullman's ability to seek court approval for the fees incurred defending that action.

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

In re Guardianship of Shell, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 1757211 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr 18, 2008)

When it comes to guardianship cases the court is not simply adjudicating a dispute, it is the party with ultimate/primary authority to determine, in its discretion, what is in the "best interests" of the ward. I think this perspective is crucial to understanding the level of scrutiny courts give to guardianship fee petitions. It is this special role of the court in guardianship matters that was also the basis of the 2d DCA's grandparent-visitation-rights opinion in 2005 [click here].

Competent Substantial Evidence: Litigation of Guardian's and attorney's fees and expenses.

The statute governing contested guardian fee petitions is F.S. 744.108. In this case the court-appointed guardian was Lutheran Services Florida, Inc. In a contested hearing on its fees the only evidence was the testimony of Lutheran Services' representative, Sharon Van Wart. She, of course, testified that the fee was appropriate. The trial court disagreed and Lutheran Services appealed. The issue on appeal was whether your own witness's testimony can constitute "competent, substantial evidence" to rule against you. The answer: of course! For me, the big lesson from this case is that fee disputes are always bad news.

Here are the key excerpts from the linked-to opinion:

    In this appeal, Lutheran Services relies on Sitter for the proposition that a probate court's decision to reduce a guardian's fee must be based on competent, substantial evidence. 779 So.2d at 348. We do not disagree with this general statement. However, we note that no presumption of reasonableness attaches to a guardian's petition for fees, and no statute or case law requires the probate court to simply accept the guardian's fee petition at face value and rubberstamp it. Nor is the probate court required to accept a guardian's personal assertion of the time he or she spent performing a common task as dispositive of the issue of reasonableness. Indeed, such would be an abdication of the probate court's responsibilities to the ward. Instead, the probate court may question the guardian concerning the tasks performed and the time spent performing those tasks, and the guardian's responses to those questions constitute competent evidence upon which the probate court may rely when determining whether the fee requested is reasonable. Moreover, when the probate court accepts such testimony from the guardian, it may assess the credibility of that testimony in light of the court's experience and common sense, and this court must defer to the probate court's credibility assessment.

    .   .   .   .   .

    Here, the probate court elicited, or attempted to elicit, evidence from Van Wart to support the disputed fee entries. Had Van Wart provided a reasonable explanation for why the claimed time was necessary to accomplish the disputed tasks in this case, we might have had some basis to find that the probate court abused its discretion in rejecting that testimony and reducing the fee. However, when Van Wart failed to provide any testimony, reasonable or not, to support the time claimed for the specific tasks at issue, the probate court was within its authority to reduce the fees accordingly. Therefore, we hold that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the fees claimed by Lutheran Services in this case and in denying the objections raised by Lutheran Services to the reduced fee.

SOAPBOX SOUND OFF:

Are courts really helping wards by forcing top-tier providers, like Lutheran Services, out of the guardianship business?

In the linked-to opinion the court alludes to its special role in contested guardianship proceedings - especially when the guardian is litigating its own fees - in the following footnote:

[FN1.]    At the start of the hearing, the probate court expressed its concerns that no one at the hearing was representing the ward, whose interests on the fee reduction issue might well conflict with the guardian's interests since the guardian's fees were being paid from the ward's assets. We share the probate court's concern that no one is truly representing the ward's interests when objections to fee reductions are filed and brought to hearing by the guardian. We also note that section 744.391, Florida Statutes (2005), requires the probate court to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the ward “if the interest of the guardian is adverse to that of his or her ward.” However, we recognize that appointing a guardian ad litem for the ward each time the guardian petitions for an award of fees is impractical. Therefore, we must rely on the probate court to exercise its authority responsibly to protect the interests of the ward in these situations.

Based on their role in guardianship cases and the perceived conflict of interest noted above, courts feel authorized - perhaps even compelled - to micromanage guardians to an extent other fiduciaries commonly before probate courts - personal representatives/ trustees - are never subjected to. However, enforcing a "managed care" pricing structure on fees in guardianship proceedings could ultimately hurt, rather than help, wards because well-meaning, well-managed, professional organizations such as Lutheran Services will inevitably get priced out of the market. Here's a revealing quote from the linked-to opinion:

Lutheran Services' counsel responded that Lutheran Services was feeling “micromanaged” and that this type of micromanagement would force it out of business.

Managed-care pricing only works if service providers are guaranteed a sufficient volume of patients/wards to produce the economies of scale that make managed care economically viable. Insurance companies make this model work because they have the power to steer patients to their network of doctors in sufficient numbers to make it economically feasible for those doctors to stay in business billing at very low per-patient rates. Probate courts have the authority to steer wards to particular service providers/guardians in only very limited circumstances. Probate courts simply cannot create the economies of scale that are needed to sustain guardians providing top-quality service at the very low fees some courts demand. Bottom line, managed-care pricing without managed care economies of scale will inevitably lead to lower quality care for wards. I don't think t