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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Added Bonus:

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bishop v. Estate of Rossi, --- So.3d ---- 2013 WL 132449 (Fla. 5th DCA January 11, 2013)

In Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal "Lodestar" method for determining the amount of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in contested proceedings. However, our supreme court also made clear that "how" trial judges go about explaining the reasons for their fee orders is just as important as what their ultimate rulings are. If a fee order's going to get reversed, it's almost always because the trial judge got the "how" part wrong.

How to draft attorney's fees and costs orders that won't get reversed on appeal:

In Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund the court held that the only way a trial judge can assure parties that the amount of attorney's fees/cost they're paying was determined in a just, objective and uniform manner is to enter orders containing detailed findings of fact as to the appropriate:

1. hourly rate,
2. number of hours reasonably expended, and
3. the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors listed in Rule 4-1.5(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

If a fee order doesn't contain these findings it is per se erroneous and subject to reversal. In other words, even if the trial judge's fee order reaches the right conclusion, if it doesn't explain in detail the reasons why (thereby giving all interested parties confidence in the ruling's fairness), the order is per se wrong. That's what happened in the linked-to case above (a contested probate proceeding) applying the fee-shifting rule found in Probate Rule 5.080, and why the order was reversed:

In awarding attorney's fees, the trial court made two distinct findings; first, entitlement to fees and, second, the reasonable amount of such fees. Entitlement to attorney's fees is largely a question of law. While specific factual findings are helpful when reviewing a determination of entitlement, such findings are not essential where, like here, “entitlement to attorney's fees is based on the interpretation of contractual provisions ... or a statute ... as a pure matter of law....” Hinkley v. Gould, Cooksey, Fennell, O'Neill, Marine, Carter & Hafner, P.A., 971 So.2d 955, 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

However, where the court sets the amount of the fee, “[t]he law is clearly established that an award of attorney's fees ‘must ... contain express findings regarding the number of hours reasonably expended and a reasonable hourly rate for the type of litigation involved.’” Quality Holdings of Fla., Inc. v. Selective Invs., IV, LLC, 25 So.3d 34, 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). This lodestar method of determining reasonable attorney's fees, adopted by our state Supreme Court in Florida Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), applies equally to probate matters. See In re Estate of Platt, 586 So.2d 328, 335 (Fla.1991). Because the trial court here did not make written findings in the order in which it awarded $9,870.00 worth of attorney's fees against Bishop, it is not possible to ascertain from the face of the order whether the trial court considered and determined the reasonable number of hours expended and the reasonable hourly rate(s). 

Mitchell v. Mitchell, 94 So.3d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA August 15, 2012)

Our state court system is overworked and under-resourced. The probate bench is no exception. So if a probate judge believes some's asking for excessive attorneys fees, the temptation is to simply cut the request by a certain % and call it a day. Understandable, but counter to the full-disclosure ethos underlying Florida Patient's Comp. Fund. If a judge is going to cut your fees, same rules apply: NO detailed findings of fact explaining the reasons why = REVERSAL.

This case involved a contested guardianship proceeding in which the probate judge cut one co-guardian's attorney's fee request by 40% in an order that didn't contain detailed findings of fact explaining the reasons why. Maybe a 40% cut was the right call, maybe it wasn't. Under Florida Patient's Comp. Fund it doesn't matter if the order doesn't contain detailed findings of fact explaining itself. By the way, also note the parting reference to the need for itemized "cost" findings.

[T]he trial court's order contains insufficient findings; it does not comply with the requirement that the court make express findings regarding the number of hours reasonably expended and a reasonable hourly rate for the type of litigation involved. Furthermore, the trial court's order fails to explain the basis for a reduction in fees which the court determined was for “multiple lawyers on the same matter.” While this reduction may have been warranted, the trial court should make a specific finding explaining which work was duplicative. The mere fact that both a partner and an associate appeared at a particular proceeding does not necessarily mean that their work was duplicative.

Although the trial court utilized the correct legal standard in concluding that the legal services must be beneficial to the ward to be compensable, see § 744.108, Fla. Stat. (2010), Thorpe v. Myers, 67 So.3d 338, 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), on remand, the trial court should make a specific finding as to which fees and costs were non-compensable on this ground. The trial court's conclusion that only 60% of the services of the father's attorneys benefitted the ward was not supported by any specific findings. In short, “[t]he circuit court's order must set forth the basis for the award, including the hours determined to be compensable, the hourly rate, and the other factors considered in arriving at the award.” Id. at 346. Additionally, as appellant points out, the order failed to itemize the costs allowed. On remand, the trial court “must also itemize the costs allowed.” Id.

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

Shuck v. Smalls, --- So.3d ----, 2012 WL 6027820 (Fla. 4th DCA December 05, 2012)

In civil litigation you usually have years to file your complaint: most statute of limitations periods fall within the 2-6 year range. Not surprisingly, most civil litigators assume the same rules apply to probate litigation. Big mistake! For example, under F.S. 733.212(3) you've only got 3 months to file a will contest after you've been formally served with the petition for administration. This ultra-short limitations period is a huge trap for the unwary and - not surprisingly - a recurring topic on this blog [click here, here].

Can the 5-day mail rule buy you more time to file your will contest? NO

When you miss a filing deadline by just a few days, the 5-day grace period for mailed service under Probate Rule 5.042(b) can be a life saver. Not so for will contests. Why? Because the 5-day mail rule doesn't apply to pleadings and motions served by formal notice. In this case the petition for administration was served by certified mail on the will challengers. This counts as formal notice. Bottom line: no 5-day grace period. So saith the 4th DCA:

In this case, appellants' petition challenging the will and the qualifications of the personal representative were untimely under section 733.212(3), Florida Statutes. On February 10, 2006, counsel for Smalls served the Notice of Administration by certified mail on appellants Charles Shuck, Carol Shuck, and Sandra Walker. Charles and Carol Shuck received the Notice of Administration on February 13, 2006, and Sandra Walker received it on February 14, 2006. However, appellants' petition was not filed until May 19, 2006, which was over three months after the Notice of Administration.

Appellants suggest that their petition was timely because Florida Probate Rule 5.042 (2006) provided for an additional five-day grace period because service was achieved by mail. This argument is without merit. The relevant version of rule 5.042(d) provides:

(d) Additional Time After Service by Mail. Except when serving formal notice, or when serving a motion, pleading, or other paper in the manner provided for service of formal notice, when an interested person has the right or is required to act within a prescribed period after the service of notice or other paper on the interested person and the notice or paper is served by mail, 5 days shall be added to the prescribed period.

Fla. Prob. R. 5.042(d) (2006) (emphasis added).

Here, the Notice of Administration was served on appellants by formal notice. Because appellants received formal notice, the five-day grace period provided by rule 5.042 was inapplicable and the three-month limitations period expired before the petition was filed.

Can filing a time-barred will contest get you (and your lawyer) sanctioned under 57.105? YES 

In this case the parties challenging the will somehow managed to convince the trial judge to give them a pass on their time-barred will contest; the trial court denied a motion to dismiss. At the time, this probably felt like a big win. Not so in retrospect. According to the 4th DCA, just because you managed to pull a fast one on your trial judge at the beginning of the case doesn't mean you get a free pass from then on.

Because the petition was clearly time-barred, we agree with appellees' argument on cross-appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award section 57.105 attorney's fees from the inception of the case. Cf. Zweibach v. Gordimer, 884 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (a time-barred claim may expose a party to an award of fees under section 57.105). Even though appellants were able to persuade the trial court to deny the motion to dismiss, this does not change the fact that their claims were clearly time-barred and were objectively frivolous at the inception of the case. That appellants were able to convince the trial court to make a legally incorrect ruling on the motion to dismiss should not shield them from liability under section 57.105.

Also, because the case was time barred, the attorneys should have known better . . . which means they're personally on the hook for 50% of the $441,500 in attorney's fees, plus cost and expert witness fees ultimately awarded against their clients. Here's why:

Finally, we note that section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2007), shifts attorney's fees and costs to “a losing party and the losing party's attorney” in equal amounts when the court finds that a claim or defense was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish it, or that it would not be supported by applying then-existing law to those material facts. However, the losing party's attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client as to the existence of those material facts. Id. “Fees must be assessed against counsel as provided by statute unless the attorney can show good faith. This places the burden where it should be.” Horticultural Enters. v. Plantas Decorativas, LTDA, 623 So.2d 821, 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

In this case, the fees awarded under section 57.105 presumptively should have been awarded against both appellants and their counsel. Furthermore, because appellants' claims were time-barred, this precludes appellants' attorneys, as a matter of law, from asserting any good faith reliance upon the representations of their clients.

Does a sanctions order under F.S. 57.105 = a fee-shifting order under F.S. 733.106(4)? YES

Under F.S. 733.106(4) a probate judge can shift the cost of litigating frivolous probate claims against the losing side's share of the inheritance by directing "from what part of the estate they shall be paid." As I wrote here, according to the 4th DCA "this section does not give the trial court unbridled discretion to award fees from any part of the estate," so it's reversible error to shift legal fees under F.S. 733.106(4) in the absence of a finding of "bad faith, wrongdoing, or frivolousness."

In this case the losing side tried to get the fee-shifing order under F.S. 733.106(4) reversed because the judge didn't make a specific finding of "bad faith, wrongdoing, or frivolousness." True enough, said the 4th DCA, but this kind of finding is basically implied any time a judge sanctions you under F.S. 57.105. So if you're already getting sanctioned under that statute, the specific findings needed for a fee-shifting order under F.S. 733.106(4) are satisfied by default. Bottom line: if you're getting nailed with a 57.105 sanction in a probate case, expect to also get it under 733.106(4). Here's why:

Section 733.106(4), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that “[w]hen costs and attorney's fees are to be paid from the estate, the court may direct from what part of the estate they shall be paid.” In In re Estate of Lane, 562 So.2d 352, 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), however, we limited a trial court's discretion under section 733.106(4) to circumstances in which the will contestant engaged in “bad faith or wrongdoing.” FN3 More recently, we reaffirmed the bad faith requirement pronounced in Lane, but clarified that frivolous litigation would support an assessment of fees under section 733.106(4). See Geary v. Butzel Long, P.C., 13 So.3d 149, 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Appellants contend that the trial court should not have awarded fees against only their share of the estate under section 733.106(4), because the trial court did not make any specific finding that appellants' claims were frivolous or filed in bad faith. However, because we have concluded that appellants' claims were frivolous from their inception, this is sufficient to satisfy the “bad faith or wrongdoing” requirement of Lane. See Geary, 13 So.3d at 153. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing fees against appellants' share of the estate under section 733.106(4).

FN3. Although the Florida Supreme Court did not specifically mention a “bad faith” requirement when it discussed section 733.106(4) in Carman v. Gilbert, 641 So.2d 1323, 1326 (Fla.1994), we do not read Carman as explicitly or implicitly overruling Lane. The issue of whether Lane correctly interpreted section 733.106(4) was not before the court in Carman.

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

Jacobson v. Sklaire, --- So.3d ----, 2012 WL 1414447 (Fla. 3d DCA April 25, 2012)

Will I personally have to pay the other side's legal fees if I lose this lawsuit?

That's a question we usually don't have to grapple with because Florida, like the rest of the U.S., follows the "American rule": win or lose, all sides pay their own legal fees unless there's specific statutory (or contractual) authority saying otherwise. For trustees, the prospect of being personally liable for an opposing party's legal fees is doubly remote. They usually don't even have to pay their own legal fees (the trust is usually on the hook for that expense), let alone someone else's.

Everyone pays their own legal fees, and trustees get to pay their fees from trust assets. That's the norm, and where you need to start from if you're representing a trustee in any litigation. But you can't stop there. From beginning to end, each decision made in any case involves its own distinct litigation risk analysis. And one of the biggest risks trustees will want managed/analyzed in any case is personal liability for legal fees. So if your trustee client is facing the prospect of litigation, he needs to know that NO, trustees don't always get their legal fees paid from trust assets [click here], and YES, he could be personally liable for a beneficiary's legal fees if the case is lost. It's this second risk your trustee clients will probably find most surprising, and it's also the focus of the 3d DCA opinion linked-to above.

Can a trustee be personally liable for a beneficiary's legal fees in a breach of trust lawsuit?

It doesn't happen often, but under F.S. 736.1004 it is possible for a trustee to end up being personally liable for a beneficiary's legal fees, which is what happened in this case. Here's how the 3d DCA summed up the operative facts and its ruling in three short paragraphs:

Jacob Sklaire died in 2004. He created the Jacob Sklaire Trust, in which he gifted to his wife, Joyce [the Beneficiary], $475,000. At his death, the Trust contained approximately $636,000. Michelle and Aline, daughters, are Co–Trustees and remainder beneficiaries of the Jacob Sklaire Trust. After Jacob died, the Co–Trustees refused to distribute the gift to the Beneficiary, who then filed a complaint to compel distribution of the gift from the Trust. The Co–Trustees answered, asserting defenses of lack of capacity, undue influence and fraud, and counterclaimed for funds allegedly wrongfully taken by the Beneficiary from trust assets during Jacob's life. The trial court denied the affirmative defenses and dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice. The Beneficiary prevailed at trial, and the trial court awarded her costs and fees from the Trust. The Co–Trustees appealed the final judgment and this Court affirmed.

The Co–Trustees thereafter agreed to an order taxing the Beneficiary's costs against the Trust, and agreed to pay the Beneficiary's attorney's fees from the Trust. The Co–Trustees had, however, without court approval paid their own attorney's fees out of the same Trust during the course of the litigation, counterclaim and appeal, leaving less than necessary to pay the Final Judgment and orders on attorney's fees and costs. The Beneficiary filed motions to compel payment, and moved to hold the Co–Trustees personally liable for the amounts, asserting breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court awarded the Beneficiary's appellate fees and costs against the Trust and deferred ruling on the Co–Trustees' individual liability.

The bulk of the money that was improperly diverted from the Trust was ultimately repaid by the Co–Trustees' original law firm, and by the Co–Trustees themselves. There were, however, insufficient funds left in the Trust to completely satisfy a balance of about $112,000 remaining from the original amounts ordered repaid, i.e., what was improperly removed from the Trust originally, plus attorney's fees, plus post-judgment interest. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court rendered the order on appeal here, which found that the Co–Trustees in this breach of trust action were jointly and severally liable to the Beneficiary for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to [F.S. 736.1004]. Finding no error, we affirm.

Does there have to be a finding of "bad faith, wrongdoing, or frivolousness" before a court can shift fees under F.S. 736.1004?

The probate code version of F.S. 736.1004 is F.S. 733.106. Most trusts and estates litigators would consider these statutes as being analogous, with the only difference being one applies in trust actions and the other in probate proceedings. Under F.S. 733.106, a probate judge can shift fees against the losing side by directing "from what part of the estate they shall be paid." As I wrote here, according to the 4th DCA "this section does not give the trial court unbridled discretion to award fees from any part of the estate," so it's reversible error to shift legal fees under F.S. 733.106 in the absence of a finding of "bad faith, wrongdoing, or frivolousness." This precondition doesn't appear anywhere within the text of the statute, but according to the 4th DCA it's necessary for the reasons explained in Geary v. Butzel Long, P.C., 13 So.3d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009):

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.

We don't know if the trial court in the Sklaire case predicated its fee-shifting ruling on a finding of "bad faith, wrongdoing, or frivolousness," nor do we know if the issue was even addressed by the litigants in their appellate briefs. It's simply not mentioned in the 3d DCA's opinion. However, given the amount of attention the 4th DCA's F.S. 733.106 rulings have attracted in certain probate Bar circles (a lot!), I think it's only a matter of time before someone argues the same precondition should apply to F.S. 736.1004. Unlike the 4th DCA's critics, I don't think this is a big deal.

As a practical matter, most trial judges aren't going to assess legal fees against a losing party unless someone's really made a mess of things or gone way beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. So if your trial judge is inclined to assess fees, he or she is probably not in a good mood to begin with, which means it shouldn't be all that difficult to also get a finding of "bad faith, wrongdoing, or frivolousness" if you ask for it. So why not ask? If your fee order gets appealed, you'll be glad you did.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Faulkner v. Faulkner, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 2937302 (Fla. 1st DCA Jul 22, 2011)

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 this blog has covered in two prior cases [click here, here]. The judiciary's consistent call has been for statutory reform to fill this "gap"; unfortunately we're still waiting.

Case Study:

In this case a woman's children filed a petition to determine her incapacity. The trial court ultimately dismissed the petition, but found that the children had filed it in good faith, and ordered their mother to pay the examining committee fees, among other costs. Mother appealed.

F.S. 744.331(7)(b) provides that the examining committee’s fees “shall be paid by the guardian from the property of the ward or, if the ward is indigent, by the state.” The 1st DCA noted, “this seems to presume that the petition for incapacity is granted and a guardian is appointed.” F.S. 744.331(7)(c) allows the court to charge the petitioner to assume the committee’s fees “if the court finds the petition to have been filed in bad faith.”

As we all know by now, and the 1st DCA pointed out again, there’s quite a gap between the two subsections: who pays the examining committee’s fees when the petition was found to have been filed in good faith (or there is no finding of bad faith), but ends up dismissed?

Rather than trying to stitch the two sections together, the 1st DCA focused on the fact that the trial court had appointed an emergency temporary guardian for the mother; this indicated that she “was a ward during the pendency of the incapacity proceeding.” This was sufficient, in the 1st DCA’s view, to justify holding her responsible for the examining committee’s fees (hint to guardianship litigators: when in doubt, get a temporary guardian appointed). All's well that ends well, but what we really need is a statutory fix. Here's how the 1st DCA summarized the current -- unsatisfactory -- state of the law, and how it ultimately justified the trial court's fee ruling:

In Ehrlich v. Severson, the Fourth District reversed an order requiring the alleged incapacitated person to pay the examining committee's fees because “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.” 985 So.2d 639, 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing section 744.331(7), Fla. Stat.). The court noted that there was a “gap” in section 744.331(7) where a good faith petition is denied or dismissed, and it urged the Legislature to amend the statute to specify who pays the examining committee's fees in these circumstances. Id. at 640 n. 1. Although the court did not specify the party responsible for paying the examining committee fees, the court, in a subsequent decision involving the same appellant, determined under the same statute that “any award of fees incurred by counsel appointed to represent the subject must come, if at all, from the petitioner.” Ehrlich v. Allen, 10 So.3d 1210, 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (emphasis supplied).

In [Levine v. Levine, 4 So.3d 730, 731 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)], the Fifth District reversed an order requiring the petitioner to pay the examining committee fees where the petition to determine incapacity was dismissed and there was no finding that the petition was filed in bad faith. See 4 So.3d at 731. The court noted that “the statute [section 744.331(7)] has a gap in determining responsibility for payment of the examining committee fees when a good faith petition is denied or dismissed.” Id. (citing Ehrlich). And like the court in Ehrlich, the court in Levine urged the Legislature to address the issue. Id.

We do not disagree with Ehrlich or Levine; indeed, we agree with our sister courts that there is a “gap” in section 744.331(7) that the Legislature should address. Section 744.331(7)(b) provides that the examining committee fees are to be paid from the property of the ward, but this seems to presume that the petition for incapacity is granted and a guardian is appointed. And section 744.331(7)(c) provides that the costs of the proceeding—which, presumably, include the examining committee fees—are to be paid by the petitioner only if the court finds that the petition was filed in bad faith. The “gap” in the statute is that it does not specify who pays the examining committee fees when the petition is dismissed or denied and there is no finding that the petition was filed in bad faith or, as here, there is an express finding that the petition was filed in good faith. Requiring the petitioner to pay the fees in these circumstances would be inconsistent with section 744.331(7)(c) and requiring the guardian to pay the fee from the ward's property under section 744.331(7)(b) would not be possible if a guardian is never appointed; however, someone has to pay the fees because section 744.331(7)(a) states that the committee are “ entitled to reasonable fees” and, moreover, it is unlikely that the professionals required for the examining committee would serve if there was a risk of non-payment or if the payment was dependent upon the outcome of the proceeding. Cf. Ehrlich, 985 So.2d at 640 (acknowledging that “payment of the examining committee's fees should not be contingent on the outcome of the competency determination”).

We need not resolve the issue in this case, however, because an emergency temporary guardian was appointed for Appellant. Thus, unlike Ehrlich, where a guardianship was apparently never established for appellant because she was characterized only as a “potential ward” ( see 985 So.2d at 640) or “alleged ward” (see 10 So.3d at 1211), here, Appellant was a ward during the pendency of the incapacity proceeding because an emergency temporary guardian was appointed for her. See § 744.102(22), Fla. Stat. (defining “ward” as “a person for whom a guardian has been appointed”). The examining committee fees were incurred, and ordered, while the emergency temporary guardian had legal control over Appellant's property and, therefore, the fees were properly assessed against her under section 744.331(7)(b). For these reasons, we affirm the trial court's order requiring Appellant to pay the examining committee fees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Thorpe v. Myers, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 2731937 (Fla. 2d DCA Jul 15, 2011)

In this case a 93-year-old ward had nine children who seemingly couldn’t agree that the sky was blue. After lengthy litigation, the trial court appointed a plenary guardian for the ward, who suffered from dementia. In separate appeals, the emergency temporary guardian and attorneys for two of the children appealed the court’s denial of their respective fee requests.

Guardian's Fees:

The 2d DCA held that the trial court’s complete denial of fees to the guardian was based on a misreading of F.S. 744.108(1), which requires that attorneys, but not guardians, demonstrate the “beneficial nature of services rendered” to the ward. Unlike those of attorneys, guardians’ services are presumed to benefit the ward. However, a circuit court may reduce the requested compensation to the extent that the guardian’s services were “unnecessary or unproductive.”

There are some exceptions to the general rule entitling a guardian to payment for services rendered, but these exceptions are limited. We briefly mention three such exceptions. First, a guardian cannot expect to be compensated for services rendered outside the scope of his or her appointment. In re Guardianship of Jansen, 405 So.2d 1074, 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Poling v. City Bank & Trust Co. of St. Petersburg, 189 So.2d 176, 182–83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Second, a guardian guilty of theft or other breach of duty may forfeit the right to compensation. See Am. Surety Co. of N.Y. v. Hayden, 112 Fla. 17, 150 So. 114, 121 (1933). Third, on occasion, usually when a family member is appointed, a guardian may agree to serve without compensation. Here, there is no exception to the statutory requirement that guardians be compensated for their services.

In order for an attorney to be awarded fees from the ward's estate under section 744.108(1), the attorney's services must benefit the ward or the ward's estate. See Butler, 898 So.2d at 1141. The clause in section 744.108(1) requiring the demonstration of the beneficial nature of the services rendered applies to attorneys, not guardians. Thus, under the statutory language, a guardian is not required to demonstrate that his or her services conferred a benefit on the ward or the ward's estate as a prerequisite for obtaining a compensation award. The statute appears to presuppose that a guardian's services benefit the ward or the ward's estate. Cf. Essenson v. Lutheran Servs. Fla., Inc. (In re Guardianship of King), 862 So.2d 869, 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“Florida cases in which fees have been denied to court-appointed representatives appear to be only those in which he or she was found to have exceeded the scope of appointment.” (citing Jansen, 405 So.2d at 1077)).

It follows that the circuit court reached an incorrect legal conclusion in ruling that Ms. Thorpe was required to demonstrate that her services as emergency temporary guardian were beneficial to the Ward or the Ward's estate as a condition of receiving court-awarded compensation. The statutory scheme presumes that the services of guardians provide a benefit. To the extent that the services of a guardian are unnecessary or unproductive, the circuit court may reduce the requested compensation based on the factors listed in section 744.108(2) but may not deny compensation altogether.

Not only was the legal basis for denying the guardian any compensation flawed, but so too was the factual basis, the 2d DCA found. It disagreed with the circuit court’s finding that the guardian’s services “were of minimal, if any[,] benefit to the Ward, and were intended to benefit [two of the Ward’s children] in the Petition for Emergency Temporary Guardianship.” Instead, there was “nothing in the record suggesting that [the guardian] was working for [the two children] in disregard of her obligation to act in the best interests of the Ward. . . . The guardian works in the interest of the ward under the supervision and control of the court, not at the behest of the person or persons who sought the appointment.”

As evidence to support that claim, the 2d DCA pointed out that the “circuit court actually extended [the guardian’s] tenure as emergency temporary guardian for another four months.” It would make little sense, the 2d DCA implied, for a guardian providing “minimal, if any, benefit” to be asked to continue her responsibilities.

Attorneys' Fees:

The 2d DCA also addressed the circuit’s order denial of attorney’s fees and costs requested by the attorneys of the two children of the Ward who submitted the original petition for guardianship. As alluded to above, attorneys are entitled to “reasonable compensation” only to the extent that their services demonstrably benefit the ward. Here's how the 2d DCA summarized the law on this point:

Under section 744.108(1), “an attorney is entitled to receive a reasonable attorney's fee for professional services rendered and reimbursement of costs incurred for the benefit of the ward; payment of reasonable compensation is mandatory.” Price v. Austin, 43 So.3d 789, 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Under the statute, “the probate court is not ‘at liberty to award anything more or less than fair and reasonable compensation for the services rendered or monies expended in each individual case.’” Lutheran Servs., 978 So.2d at 890 (quoting Lewis v. Gramil Corp., 94 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1957)). However, the attorney's entitlement to payment of reasonable fees and costs is subject to the limitation that his or her services must benefit the ward. King v. Fergeson, Skipper, Shaw, Keyser, Baron, & Tirabassi, P.A., 862 So.2d 873, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Villanti, J., concurring specially); Butler, 898 So.2d at 1141.

The circuit court found that the two children’s attorneys did not provide any services for the ward. By an abuse of discretion standard, the 2d DCA acknowledged that some of the attorneys’ services amounted to “unproductive litigation over who would be appointed as guardian or other goals that did not benefit the Ward or her estate.”

But some work did make the ward better off. Were it not for the guardianship proceedings initiated by the attorneys, there would have been no determination of incapacity, and no appointment of a plenary guardian, each of which seemed to have been in the ward’s best interest. Accordingly, the 2d DCA remanded to the circuit court with instructions to “make an appropriate award of fees and costs.”

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

Guy Bennett Rubin, P.A. v. Guettler, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 4577670 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 05, 2011)

The Florida Bar ethics rules governing contingent fee agreements are found in Rule 4-1.5(f). Other than in divorce and criminal-defense cases [Rule 4-1.5(f)(3)], contingent fees are acceptable in any form of litigation, including contested probate and trust proceedings.

There's not a lot of Florida case law out there addressing contingent fees in probate cases. So the linked-to opinion above should be of special interest to any probate litigator taking cases on a contingency fee basis. What this case makes painfully clear is that Florida law shifts 100% of the risk of NOT getting paid in contingency cases to lawyers who are prematurely discharged by their clients, even if the discharge is without cause and the fee agreement contains a fallback hourly-fee payment clause (a “discharge clause”).

Case Study:

In the linked-to case above the law firm took this probate case on a contingency fee basis. The firm was then fired without cause and the litigation apparently abandoned by the client before any recovery was obtained. The law firm asked the trial court for an order compelling payment for work done prior to the discharge under the following discharge clause contained in its fee agreement.

["Discharge Clause"]

In the event I discharge the firm prior to resolution by judgment or settlement, or if I elect to no longer pursue the Anticipated Claims as identified herein-below, I agree to immediately thereafter pay LAW FIRM accrued hourly legal fees based upon the hourly rates as follows:

Services of Guy Bennett Rubin $500/hr., all other attorneys $400/hr., all paralegals $150/hr., all legal assistants $100/hr. listed in paragraph 4 immediately above.

[Nature of Claims]

ANTICIPATED CLAIMS: Dispute and contest the last will and testament of Leo Guettler Jr. and/or revocable trust of Leo Guettler Jr.; defense of claims b y Edna L. Guettler, Inc. and dissolution or liquidation of my interest in Edna L. Guettler, Inc.

Trial court said NO, concluding that the discharge clause constituted a penalty provision in violation of ethics rule 4–1.5, and was thus NOT enforceable as a matter of law. The 4th DCA agreed:

“An attorney shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost....” Rule 4–1.5(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. A termination-of-services clause in a contingency-fee agreement, which provides for the client to pay the discharged law firm for all services rendered up through the date of termination at the prevailing hourly rate for firm members, if the client abandons or dismisses the claim, violates rule 4–1.5 on its face. The Fla. Bar v. Hollander, 607 So.2d 412, 414 (Fla.1992).

In The Florida Bar v. Doe, 550 So.2d 1111 (Fla.1989), the contingency-fee contract included a “discharge clause” which permitted the client to discharge Doe only after paying him the greater of $350 per hour for all the time spent on the case or forty percent of the greatest gross amount offered in settlement. At the disciplinary hearing, the referee found that while the contingent fee contract violated rule 4–1.5 on its face, there was no testimony offered that Doe's actions were ever in violation of the rules; consequently, the referee found that Doe was not guilty of any ethical violation warranting disciplinary proceedings. Id. at 1112. However, on review, the supreme court disagreed because “the contract itself shows an ethical violation.” Id. The court found that the discharge provision had the effect of intimidating the client into not exercising her right of discharge and penalized the client for exercising this right. Id. at 1113. The court concluded that “[a]n attorney cannot exact a penalty for a right of discharge. To do so is contrary to our statement of policy in Rosenberg ....” Id. See also The Fla. Bar v. Spann, 682 So.2d 1070, 1072–73 (Fla.1996) (finding that a contingency-fee agreement that provided for payment based on a specified hourly rate upon termination by the client constitutes a penalty clause in violation of rule 4–1.5 because the client would be forced to pay the attorney upon discharge even where the contingency had never been met). 

***************

Even if the Agreement is unenforceable as a matter of law, Rubin argues that he should have been permitted to proceed on the theory of quantum meruit as pled in Count III of his complaint. “A Florida Bar member who has entered into an improper fee agreement is nonetheless entitled to receive the reasonable value of his or her services on the equitable basis of quantum meruit.” Patterson v. Law Office of Lauri J. Goldstein, P.A., 980 So.2d 1234, 1236, n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Chandris, S.A. v. Yanakakis, 668 So.2d 180, 186, n. 4 (Fla.1995)). However, an action for quantum meruit “arises only upon the successful occurrence of the contingency. If the client fails in his recovery, the discharged attorney will similarly fail and recover nothing.” Rosenberg, 409 So.2d at 1022. Here, the trial court found that there was no evidence that the plaintiffs received anything as a result of the litigation. Instead, the Guettlers dismissed their claims against the estate and recovered nothing. Therefore, because the contingency did not occur, Rubin is not entitled to any quantum meruit recovery.

Lesson learned?

In Florida, if you agree to take a probate case on a contingency fee basis, you assume 100% of the risk of NOT getting paid for your work if your client decides to fire you and/or abandon the claim before the case is over, even if you've done nothing wrong. This risk may be worth taking, but Florida probate lawyers (who don't do contingency cases on a regular basis) need to know it exists. Adding insult to injury, not only might you not get paid, you might end up getting sanctioned by the Florida Bar if you include a discharge clause in your contingency fee agreement. It's telling that the 4th DCA cited to two such cases in its opinion (see above).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Levin v. Levin, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 3477032 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 10, 2011)

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 wrongful, frivolous or bad faith litigation will be paid. This type of sanction against wrong doing is akin to a F.S. § 57.105 motion for fees, a comparison I previously wrote about here.

My experience has been that judges usually don't pull the trigger on this sort of sanction until things get really, really bad. By then, there's no doubt the wrongdoer is acting way out of bounds, and the court simply enters an order assessing the winning side's attorneys' fees against the losing side. What's wrong with this picture is that busy trial-court judges may be tempted to NOT include detailed findings of fact in their fee orders. Trial lawyers need to guard against this omission if they want to ensure their hard-fought-for fee orders stand up on appeal. The 3d DCA recently ruled that an attorney's fee order without supporting detailed findings is per se reversible error [click here].

In the linked-to opinion above the trial court's fee order was reversed NOT because the sanction wasn't warranted, but simply because the order failed to contain the requisite findings of bad faith, wrongdoing or frivolousness needed to make it stick on appeal.

In this probate case, appellant appeals a judgment assessing attorney's fees against her share of the estate as well as an order taxing costs against her. The trial court did not make the requisite finding of any bad faith, wrongdoing, or frivolousness before awarding fees against appellant's share of the estate. See Geary v. Butzel Long, P.C., 13 So.3d 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); In re Estate of Lane, 562 So.2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine, either from the record or after an evidentiary hearing, whether appellant engaged in any bad faith, wrongdoing, or frivolousness in the pursuit of her claim. 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If, when and how Civ. Pro. Rule 1.525, the rule setting a 30-day post-judgment deadline for filing attorney's fee motions in civil litigation, applies to contested probate, guardianship and trust proceedings, is an important question. The last thing any lawyer wants to do is blow 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.

Florida appellate courts have upheld application of Rule 1.525's 30-day deadline to all adversary probate and guardianship proceedings (there's never been any question that Rule 1.525 does NOT apply to NON-adversary probate/ guardianship proceedings), and arguably to all trust proceedings. See Price v. Austin, 43 So.3d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (adversary guardianship proceeding, click here); Hays v. Lawrence, 1 So.3d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (adversary probate proceeding, click here); Donkersloot v. Donkersloot, 993 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (trust litigation, click here).

However, a rule designed to apply in the general commercial litigation context didn't really work in the probate, guardianship and trust context, where fee petitions are appropriately filed all the time, not just after a final judgment is entered. To fix this glitch in 2011 legislative and rule changes were adopted completely eliminating Rule 1.525's 30-day deadline in the adversary probate and guardianship context, and limiting Rule 1.525's 30-day deadline to fee petitions filed in trust proceedings by anyone other than the trustee (e.g., a beneficiary suing the trustee for malfeasance).

[1]  Rule 1.525 NOT Applicable to ANY Probate or Guardianship Proceeding:

In In re Amendments to Florida Probate Rules, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 4467595 (Fla. Sep 28, 2011), the Florida Supreme Court amended subdivision (d)(2) of Probate Rule 5.025 (the rule governing adversary probate and guardianship proceedings), completely eliminating Rule 1.525's application in the adversary probate and guardianship context as follows:

(2) After service of formal notice, the proceedings, as nearly as practicable, must be conducted similar to suits of a civil nature, including entry of defaults. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure govern, except for rule 1.525.

[2]  Rule 1.525 Applicable to ONLY Certain Contested Trust Proceedings:

In 2011 the Florida legislature adopted new subsection (6) to Fla. Stat. § 736.0201 specifically limiting Rule 1.525’s application to anyone other than the trustee (e.g., a beneficiary suing the trustee for malfeasance) as follows:

Fla. Stat. § 736.0201(6): 

Rule 1.525, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, shall apply to judicial proceedings concerning trusts, except that the following do not constitute taxation of costs or attorney’s fees even if the payment is for services rendered or costs incurred in a judicial proceeding:

(a) A trustee’s payment of compensation or reimbursement of costs to persons employed by the trustee from assets of the trust.

(b) A determination by the court directing from what part of the trust fees or costs shall be paid, unless the determination is made under s. 736.1004 in an action for breach of fiduciary duty or challenging the exercise of, or failure to exercise, a trustee’s powers.

For more on the analysis that went into the new trust-code provision limiting Rule 1.525's 30-day deadline to only certain trust proceedings, you'll want to read Florida House of Representative's Staff Analysis of CS/HB 325.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Johnson v. Amritt, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 4861745 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec 01, 2010)

In contested trust and estate proceedings the fiduciary in charge of the estate (i.e., the trustee, personal representative or guardian) hires the lawyer, but the estate's beneficiaries pay those fees (the fiduciary's attorney's fees are paid from the estate).

Because the party paying the fiduciary's legal fees did not participate in negotiating the fee arrangement, there's a built in tension every time a court is asked to rule on their reasonableness. Recognizing this tension, Florida's Trust Code (F.S. 736.1007) and Probate Code (F.S. 733.6171) both contain specific guidelines to aid trial judges in setting attorney fees.

One of the primary social values promoted by these statutes is assuring the public that judges are making fee decisions in an objective and uniform manner. Here's how the Florida Supreme Court articulated this crucially important point in Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985):

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

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

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

Although the amount of an attorney fee award must be determined on the facts of each case, we believe that it is incumbent upon this Court to articulate specific guidelines to aid trial judges in the setting of attorney fees.

The only way a trial judge can assure parties involved in a contested trust or estate proceeding that the amount of attorney's fees they're paying was determined in an objective and uniform manner is to enter orders containing detailed findings as to [1] the hourly rate, [2] the number of hours reasonably expended, and [3] the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors. If a fee order doesn't contain these findings it is per se erroneous and subject to reversal.

In other words, even if the trial judge's fee order reaches the right conclusion, if it doesn't explain in detail how the judge arrived at his conclusion (thereby giving all interested parties confidence in the ruling's fairness), the order is per se wrong. That's what happened in the linked-to case above, and why the trial judge's fee order was reversed:

We review the trial court's order “approving and authorizing the payment of attorney's fees” to the former emergency temporary guardian's counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we hold that the trial court did not make the requisite findings for an award of attorney's fees. See Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145, 1151-52 (Fla.1985). “An order awarding attorneys' fees is ‘fundamentally erroneous on its face’ when the trial court fails ‘to make specific findings as to the hourly rate, the number of hours reasonably expended, and the appropriateness of reduction or enhancement factors as required by [Rowe, 472 So.2d at 1151].” Parton v. Palomino Lakes Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 928 So.2d 449, 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Ass'n at the Vineyards, Inc., 891 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). We reverse the order on appeal and remand with instructions for the trial court to make the requisite findings set forth in Rowe and its progeny and state the basis for awarding any such attorney's fees.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Price v. Austin, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 3120212 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug 10, 2010)

Over the last few years probate lawyers have been scratching their heads wondering 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 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.

By now there's no question the rule applies in any "adversary" probate proceeding and in all trust litigation. In 2008 the 2d DCA held here that the rule applies in Trust litigation, then in 2009 the 5th DCA held here that the rule applies in adversary probate proceedings, and now in the linked-to opinion the 1st DCA has come to the same conclusion with respect to adversary guardianship proceedings:

[A] notice that the proceeding for incapacity was adversary was served on June 12, 2008. On July 7, 2008, the court entered an order determining total incapacity. Over a year later, on September 18, 2009, appellant served a verified petition to approve payment of fees. Florida Probate Rule 5.025(d)(2) provides that, once a proceeding under the probate rules has been declared to be adversarial, it “shall be conducted similar to suits of a civil nature and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern, including entry of defaults.” Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 requires a motion for attorney's fees to be filed “no later than 30 days after filing the judgment....” In Hays v. Lawrence, 1 So.3d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), the court held that, in a proceeding declared as adversarial, rule 1.525 governed a motion for attorney's fees filed pursuant to section 733.106(2) and affirmed a denial of a claim for attorney's fees as untimely under the rule. Although Hays involved a different fee statute than the case before us, section 733.106(2) and section 744.108, applicable here, are similar. Both statutes are legislative expressions of the desirability of the payment of attorney's fees for services rendered under the specified proceeding. Accordingly, because the petition for attorney's fees was untimely filed under rule 1.525, the trial court's order denying fees is AFFIRMED.

Must be an "adversary" proceeding:

An important point to keep in mind with respect to contested guardianship (and probate) proceedings is that Rule 1.525 only applies to "adversary" proceedings (assume the rule applies to all trust proceedings). So if someone tries to block your fee petition by citing to this rule, make sure your judge understands it simply does NOT apply to probate and guardianship proceedings that have NOT been declared adversarial in accordance with Florida Probate Rule 5.025.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bessard v. Bessard, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 1875627 (Fla. 3d DCA May 12, 2010)

Durable powers of attorney (POAs) are an integral part of modern estate planning. The prevalence of POAs means they come up with some frequency in estate-related litigation [click here]. That's what happened in the linked-to case. What's interesting about this case is it's focus on F.S. 709.08(11), a little-known subclause of Florida's durable POA statute entitling the prevailing party in POA litigation to attorney's fees and costs. Here's what the statute says:

(11) DAMAGES AND COSTS.-- In any judicial action under this section, including, but not limited to, the unreasonable refusal of a third party to allow an attorney in fact to act pursuant to the power, and challenges to the proper exercise of authority by the attorney in fact, the prevailing party is entitled to damages and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.

In this case a father signed a durable POA granting his son ("Joseph") authority over his property while he underwent treatment for leukemia, tuberculosis "and other medical infirmities." The POA was challenged in court by Joseph's mother and two sisters. Before the court could rule on the merits of the case, Joseph's father died. At that point Joseph sought to have the case dismissed as moot. Joseph also filed a "renunciation" of his powers under the POA.

The trial court granted Joseph's motion to dismiss, but also granted a motion for attorney's fees and costs filed by his mother and sisters as the prevailing parties. On appeal the 3d DCA affirmed the trial court's attorney's fee order as follows:

As to the attorney's fees and costs awarded to the appellees as the prevailing parties, we also affirm. Section 709.08(11), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that the prevailing party in power of attorney litigation is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The determination of the prevailing party for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees and costs is based on whether the party seeking fees succeeded on any significant issue(s) in the litigation. See Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla.1992) (holding “that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorney's fees”); Boxer Max Corp. v. Cane A. Sucre, Inc., 905 So.2d 916, 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“The ‘prevailing party,’ for purposes of attorney's fees, is a party which the trial court determines prevailed on significant issues in the litigation.”).

Joseph contends that because the trial court never determined whether the signature on the power of attorney was executed by Mr. Bessard, and if executed whether it was done so knowingly and voluntarily, the trial court erred in granting the appellees attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing parties. We disagree. The appellees sought to have the power of attorney declared void, contending that the document was a fraud. When Joseph renunciated the powers granted to him under the power of attorney, agreed that the document be declared null and void, and destroyed the original and all copies, his actions necessarily mooted the complaint and was the functional equivalent of a judgment or verdict in favor of the appellees. See Augustin v. Health Options of S. Fla., Inc., 580 So.2d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (finding that when the defendant changed its position in the matter and made full payment as prayed for in the plaintiff's complaint, it necessarily mooted the complaint and was the functional equivalent of a judgment or verdict in favor of the plaintiff entitling the plaintiff to an award of attorney's fees as the prevailing party); see also Smith v. Adler, 596 So.2d 696, 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding that “it is [the] results, not [the] procedure, which govern the determination” of which party prevailed for purposes of awarding attorney's fees).

Lesson learned?

Litigation can be very expensive. Any time your client has a shot at getting the losing side to pay his or her attorney's fees, it's a BIG deal. Just as importantly, the downside risk of F.S. 709.08(11) needs to be understood by all at the outset. This disclosure should be prominent in your retainer agreements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you're an estate planner, it's not unusual to get asked if the fees being proposed by trust company "X" are reasonable. We usually have a sense of what the going rate is in our market, but it's mostly a "guesstimate." So I was glad to see an excellent piece of market research published on The Trust Advisor Blog. In a blog post entitled Who's Charging What for Trust Services? trust advisor Jerry Cooper provides a comprehensive chart of the fee estimates he obtained from numerous well-established trust companies and an easy-to-understand explanation of how the various fees stack up. Good stuff to keep handy for the next time you're asked about corporate trustee fees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Morrison v. West, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 532792 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 17, 2010)

The linked-to opinion above is the last gasp of bitter litigation swirling around the $100 million estate of Palm Beach socialite Pedro Morrison, who died in 2003 [click here, here].  This time around the issue was whether North Carolina sole practitioner William E. West could keep his million dollar legal fee. His former client, the decedent's widow - Carla Morrison, fired him the day after he settled her case in mediation.

At first things looked good for West. Here's how the Palm Beach Post reported on his trial-court win in Morrison widow miffed:

The Palm Beach County Circuit Court judge says Morrison "behaved despicably" toward her former lawyer, North Carolina attorney William E. West, and must pay his $1 million legal fee.

Ouch! What would prompt [Judge] Winikoff to call Morrison's testimony and demeanor "outrageous?"

How about Morrison firing her lawyer the morning a mediation settlement he hammered out was to be filed with the court. Or Morrison's refusal to pay West his $1 million legal fee, as she had agreed. Or Morrison's claim she needed the $1 mil for living expenses - then later admitting she spent the cash on a a bracelet worth between $140,000 and $250,000.

That was then, this is now. On appeal West lost it all. And all because he didn't want to spend a few bucks on associating with a Florida lawyer and getting admitted pro hac vice.

The supreme court explained its holding in [Chandris, S.A. v. Yanakakis, 668 So.2d 180 (Fla.1995)], as supporting policy concerns related to protection of the public. The prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law in Florida derives not only from the Rules of Professional Conduct, but also from statutory law. The court in Chandris noted that section 454.23, Florida Statutes (1983), provided that “[a]ny person not licensed or otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court of Florida who shall practice law ... shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.” FN2 Relying on long established precedent requiring admission to the bar, the court said:

Florida has a unified bar, and all persons engaged in the practice of law here must be members of that bar. Petition of Florida State Bar Ass'n, 40 So.2d 902 (Fla.1949). More than thirty years ago, we enunciated why we prohibit those who are not members of The Florida Bar from engaging in professional activities in Florida which are within the boundaries of the practice of law. This Court noted in State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So.2d 587, 595 (Fla.1962), rev'd on other grounds, 373 U.S. 379, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963), that:

The reason for prohibiting the practice of law by those who have not been examined and found qualified to practice is frequently misunderstood. It is not done to aid or protect the members of the legal profession either in creating or maintaining a monopoly or closed shop. It is done to protect the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by unqualified persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little, if any, control in the matter of infractions of the code of conduct which, in the public interest, lawyers are bound to observe.

Chandris, 668 So.2d at 184. Despite the experience and qualifications of the unlicensed lawyer in Chandris, the court held that he could not recover under a contingent fee contract.

In a footnote, the court conceded that while a member of The Florida Bar may not claim attorney's fees under a void contingent fee agreement, a Florida Bar member may still be entitled to the reasonable value of his or her services in quantum meruit. Id. at 186 n. 4. While West seeks to expand this footnote to claim entitlement to his quantum meruit fee, his interpretation is clearly wrong. While a contract between a Florida Bar member and a client might be illegal, the Bar member's provision of legal services in Florida is not illegal. In contrast, the provision of legal services by a non-Florida Bar member is illegal. See § 454.23, Fla. Stat. To award fees for illegal activities is contrary to public policy. See Spence, Payne, Masington & Grossman, P.A. v. Philip M. Gerson, P.A., 483 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

*     *     *     *     *

West argues that he anticipated securing a Florida attorney but simply did not do so before the matter settled in mediation. Although in September 2004 West drafted a motion for appearance pro hac vice and forwarded it, and a proposed order for admission, to McDonald & Crawford, that Fort Lauderdale firm was never actually retained by Morrison. After an e-mail from the firm to West discussing its fee, the Florida firm did not have further conversations with West until well after the mediation. In fact, West did not even seek pro hac vice admission to present the settlement agreement to the probate court for approval.FN4 This can hardly be deemed a technical error when he was admitted pro hac vice in another case involving Morrison and the trust right before he was terminated by Morrison. He knew that such admission was necessary. We can only assume that [West] chose to ignore [getting admitted pro hac vice] to avoid the payment of a fee to McDonald & Crawford.

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

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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.

In a companion case, Mercer v. Kanowsky, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 2168810 (Fla. 4th DCA Jul 22, 2009), the 4th DCA came to the same conclusions with respect to the fee order assessed against the trustee personally, and reversed that order as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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)
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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 this outcome is in the "best interest" of wards.

Having diagnosed the problem, I don't think a courtroom is the cure for the public policy problem I've described above. Courts are good at adjudicating discreet disputes, they're institutionally incapable of collecting and analyzing the data needed to craft broadly applicable public policy solutions of the type needed to deliver top quality care to minors and incapacitated adult wards subject to guardianship proceedings. An organization like Lutheran Services is ideally positioned to play a role in crafting good public policy, and perhaps the organization would have been better off going that route vs. the litigation route? The 2d DCA made this point at the conclusion of its opinion:

Lutheran Services is a renowned nonprofit organization with impeccable credentials for providing guardianship services. Certainly it would be in Lutheran Services' best interest to work with the court system to improve this system rather than seeking to end it.

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

Bud Newman of the Daily Business Review reported in Attorney Unlicensed in Florida Still Awarded $1 Million in Fees in Messy Probate Case on a case I first wrote about last year [click here].  Here's an excerpt:

A Palm Beach Circuit judge has awarded a North Carolina attorney $1 million in fees for representing a wealthy Palm Beach, Fla., widow in a messy probate case even though the attorney was not licensed to practice law in Florida.

Judge Jeffrey Winikoff ruled Winston-Salem, N.C., solo practitioner William West was entitled to the fee for his work protecting and improving the financial interests of Palm Beach resident Carla Morrison in a complex probate case in 2004 and 2005.

Morrison is the widow of Pedro Morrison, who died of a heart attack in 2003 at 49 shortly after filing for a divorce, leaving an estimated $100 million estate, according to court documents. His three beneficiaries were his widow, his brother Carlos Morrison and Carlos' son Tommy.

*     *     *     *     *

Winikoff also ruled West should get his fee despite the fact the paperwork he submitted to practice law in Florida had not yet been approved. The judge said West's failure to get his paperwork certified on time made him an unlicensed practitioner on the date the financial settlement was signed.

Even though West "engaged in the unlicensed practice of law" throughout his representation of Morrison, "the public policy of the state of Florida would not be compromised by allowing West recovery" of his fee, the judge wrote.

Four months after the probate settlement was approved in 2005, Winikoff noted the Florida Supreme Court changed the rules on appearances by out-of-state lawyers in disputes in Florida. The Florida Bar had already recommended the change, and "the American Bar Association had authorized conduct similar to West's since 2002," the judge wrote.

For those reasons, the judge ruled "there was no public policy violation that would justify" denying the fee to West.

The complicated case has another potentially bizarre twist that could have two big-name law firms battling each other over who should pay West.

West Palm Beach attorney Gerald Richman of Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh Mirabito & Christensen, who represented West, said the total award with interest would be about $1.15 million after deducting the $41,000 he has already received. However, Richman said he may sue the Edwards Angell firm to collect some or all of West's $1 million award.

Morrison authorized $1 million to be set aside for West and held in an Edwards Angell trust account until the fee dispute with West was resolved, Richman said. Instead, he claimed the law firm returned the money to Morrison before the dispute was resolved and she spent at least $250,000 of it on a diamond bracelet and may have spent all of it.

Palm Beach Circuit Judge Karen Martin, who presided over the probate settlement, ordered Morrison in 2006 to return the money to the Edwards Angell trust account. Richman said she has not yet done so. Richman said he will first try to get West's money from Morrison, but if her assets -- including a $90,000 monthly payment from her late husband's estate -- are legally protected from being attached, "obviously we're going to look at the Edwards Angell firm" to try and collect the money.

"They made a mistake here," Richman said of Edwards Angell.

Lesson learned?

There are two sets of lawyers sweating bullets in this case. 

First, I was surprised to learn that an otherwise very astute out-of-state attorney (he apparently was instrumental in crafting a settlement agreement involving a complex $100 million estate) put his own $1 million fee at risk by apparently failing to file a timely pro hac vice motion.  Although these motions "should" be perfunctory in nature, as another out-of-state attorney recently learned, even something as simple as a pro hac vice motion can trip you up when you least expect it [click here].

I think everyone involved in this case probably assumes the fee-order reported on above will be appealed, so Mr. West's $1 million pay day remains uncertain.  This poor guy is probably kicking himself for not getting that darn pro hac vice motion filed when he first stepped into the case.

Second, the Edwards Angell attorneys are probably wishing someone in accounting had stood up and said "are you kidding me??!!" before they released the $1 million in estate funds they were supposed to retain in their escrow account pending final resolution of the fee dispute.  You can just imagine how upset the trial-court judge must have been when he learned these funds had been released to the client and she in turn testified that she blew $250,000 of those funds on a diamond bracelet and "may have spent all of it."  Oops!!

Stay tooned for more . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Nasser v. Nasser, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 239073 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan 30, 2008)

Fees and costs.  Attorneys say those words all the time, and we can all agree on what we mean by the word "fees," even when we don't agree on the amount of fees; what's usually much less clear is what mean by the word "costs" for purposes of a costs order.  Understanding the scope of the word "costs" is important because it enables parties to better weigh the pros/cons of seeking a costs order (i.e., will the expense of getting a costs order exceed the benefit) as well as assessing the economic risks when you're being threatened with a costs order.

The linked to case is useful on two fronts: (i) it gives probate counsel a ready resource for anticipating which expenses are likely to be included within a costs order; and (ii) it explains the proponent's burden of proof when seeking costs.  In this case the personal representative appealed an order taxing costs that did not include deposition costs.  Here's how the 4th DCA addressed this point:

As to the award of costs, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to tax as costs the expense of two depositions. Pursuant to the recently revised Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, deposition expenditures are included in the category of items that should be taxed. In re Amendments to Unif. Guidelines for Taxation of Costs, 915 So.2d 612, 616 (Fla.2005). It is the moving party's burden to show that the requested costs were reasonably necessary to defend the case at the time the action precipitating the cost was taken. Id. During the hearing on the motion for attorney's fees and costs, it does not appear that there was ever any inquiry into whether the requested costs were reasonably necessary to defend the case at the time the action precipitating the cost was taken. As the appellant failed to meet her burden in the trial court to show that the requested costs were reasonably necessary, we must affirm the court's denial of these additional costs.

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

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

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

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

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

I previously wrote about this case here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

J.P. Morgan Trust Co., N.A. v. Siegel, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2710957 (Fla. 4th DCA Sep 19, 2007)

Anytime trust beneficiaries object to a trust accounting or any aspect of a trust's administration the trustee is potentially subject to claims for damages.  This theoretical risk of damages arguably places the trustee's individual interests in conflict with those of the trust's beneficiaries, thus requiring the trustee to seek court approval under F.S. § 736.0802(10) prior to using trust funds to pay its attorney's fees.  Here's the text of the statute:

(10) Payment of costs or attorney's fees incurred in any trust proceeding from the assets of the trust may be made by the trustee without the approval of any person and without court authorization, except that court authorization shall be required if an action has been filed or defense asserted against the trustee based upon a breach of trust. Court authorization 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.

I recently wrote about this rule in the context of a 2006 case out of the 3d DCA [click here].

But how clear must the conflict of interest be before the trustee's obligation to seek court approval prior to paying legal fees is triggered?  In the linked-to case the trial court determined that answers to interrogatories filed by trust beneficiaries in the context of an accounting proceeding hinting at possible future breach-of-trust claims were enough.  The corporate trustee in this case, J.P. Morgan, cried foul, arguing that in the absence of a breach-of-trust action being filed, it shouldn't be obligated to seek court approval prior to paying its legal fees with trust funds.  The 4th DCA saw it differently, and upheld the trial court's ruling:

J.P. Morgan argues that under the trial court's ruling all trustees are placed in a position of uncertainty as to when to seek court approval before paying attorneys' fees from trust assets. However, we hold that in this case J.P. Morgan should have known from the Siegels' answers to interrogatories in the 2003 action that it would face an action based on the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and trust mismanagement. At the very least, J.P. Morgan should have realized it was in a position of conflict at that point. Based on the foregoing, we affirm.

Lesson learned:

What's most important about the linked-to case is that it's a prime example of the type of ambiguity the legislature was seeking to avoid when it amended F.S. 737.403(2)(e) in 2005 (this was the predecessor statute incorporated verbatim into new F.S. § 736.0802(10)).  Here's how the new legislation was addressed in the linked-to case:

Section 737.403(2), Florida Statutes, was amended effective July 1, 2005. Section 737.403(2)(e) now provides, in pertinent part:

(2) If the duty of the trustee and the trustee's individual interest or his or her interest as trustee of another trust conflict in the exercise of a trust power, the power may be exercised only by court authorization.... Court authorization is not required for any of the following:
....

(e) Payment of costs or attorney's fees incurred in any trust proceeding from the assets of the trust unless an action has been filed or defense asserted against the trustee based upon a breach of trust. Court authorization 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.

§ 737.403(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis supplied).

The legislature has resolved the issue in favor of the interpretation urged by J.P. Morgan that requires a pleading be filed. However, as J.P. Morgan acknowledges, the new statute was not in effect for the vast majority of the time period at issue.[FN1]

[FN1.] The Siegels' 2006 lawsuit against J.P. Morgan and Judith Novak asserted various causes of action relating to the time period of January 1, 2003 through September 1, 2005.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (5)
• Share Link

Greene v. Borsky, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2119215 (Fla. 4th DCA Jul 25, 2007)

Whether a particular type of order is subject to appeal can have a huge impact on how a case is litigated.  In this case, the issue was whether a trial court's order permitting trustees to pay their legal fees with assets of the trust was subject to appeal.  The 4th DCA said YES.  Thankfully!

Here's how the 4th DCA explained it's ruling:

The orders in this case are appealable non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) provides that appealable non-final orders include those that determine “the right to immediate possession of property .” This Court has previously held that a sum of money is property to which Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) can apply. In Florida Discount Properties, Inc. v. Windermere Condominium, Inc., 763 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), a lessor filed a motion to have disputed rent paid into the registry of the court. Id. at 1084. The trial court denied the motion, and the lessor appealed. Id. On appeal, this Court concluded that the order was an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), because it determined “the right to immediate possession of property, i.e., the rent payments.” Id. Likewise, in the present case, the trial court orders determined the right to immediate possession of property, here trust assets to be used by trustees to pay for attorney's fees and witness fees expended in defense of the trust. As such, we conclude that this Court possesses jurisdiction over this appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) and affirm in all respects without further comment.

Careful readers of this blog will recognize the name of one of the attorneys on the winning side of the linked-to case: Amy B. Beller of Miller & O'Neill, P.L.  (see here for prior post).  Well done Amy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported in Politician's Heirs Snare Thelen Reid in Complex Estate Battle, a New York firm successfully opposed a subpoena to turn over its files in connection with contested probate proceedings in Texas because the estate hadn't paid its bills.  The basis of the New York firm's retaining lien was described as follows in the linked-to piece:

In a Feb. 9 decision, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol Robinson Edmead said Thelen Reid was entitled to a retaining lien allowing it to keep documents relating to Martinez's estate pending payment of outstanding legal bills. She quashed Gonzalez's deposition subpoenas on the same grounds.

The judge noted that, while all the firm's bills had been paid while Martinez was alive, Gonzalez had retained the firm after his death. Justice Edmead ruled that Gonzalez had retained Thelen Reid on behalf of Martinez's estate, not in her individual capacity.

"Since the Law Firm's rendition of services at the request of Ms. Gonzalez was made on behalf of the Estate of Dr. Martinez, such services entitle the Law Firm to a common-law retaining lien on any of the Estate's books, papers, money and securities which are in the attorney's possession," the judge wrote in In the Matter of the Application of Letizia Martinez de Gonzalez, 114877/06.

Florida Law: Ethics Opinion 88-11

Florida law also recognizes an attorney's right to a retaining lien over client files when bills go unpaid.  Here's how Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 88-11 summarized Florida law on this point:

Many attorneys are unaware that in Florida a case file is considered to be the property of the attorney rather than the client. Dowda and Fields, P.A. v. Cobb , 452 So.2d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Florida Ethics Opinion 71-37 [since withdrawn]. Under normal circumstances, an attorney should make available to the client, at the client's expense, copies of information in the file where such information would serve a useful purpose to the client. Opinion 71-37 [since withdrawn].


*     *     *     *     *

Florida common law recognizes two types of attorney's liens: the charging lien and the retaining lien. The charging lien may be asserted when a client owes the attorney for fees or costs in connection with a specific matter in which a suit has been filed. To impose a charging lien, the attorney must show: (1) a contract between attorney and client; (2) an understanding for payment of attorney's fees out of the recovery; (3) either an avoidance of payment or a dispute regarding the amount of fees; and (4) timely notice. Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So.2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1986). The attorney should give timely notice of the asserted charging lien by either filing a notice of lien or otherwise pursuing the lien in the underlying suit. The latter approach is preferred.

Unlike a charging lien, a retaining lien may be asserted with respect to amounts owed by a client for all legal work done on the client's behalf regardless of whether the materials upon which the retaining lien is asserted are related to the matter in which the outstanding charges were incurred. A retaining lien may be asserted on file materials as well as client funds or property in the attorney's possession, and may be asserted whether or not a suit has been filed. Mones, 486 So.2d at 561.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Harding v. Rosoff, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 461381(Fla. 4th DCA Feb 14, 2007)

This is the second appellate opinion arising out of this piece of probate litigation.  I wrote about the first appeal here.  In this sad case a 95 year old woman inadvertently failed to comply with the technical  requirements necessary to effectively exercise a power of appointment she had under a trust created by her brother over 30 years ago.

The default beneficiary under brother's trust sued the probate estate over the attempted exercise of the power of appointment and won.  Rather than being content with this win, default trust beneficiary then sued the personal representative of sister's estate for attorneys' fees.  The trial court said NO WAY, and the 4th DCA agreed as follows:

• Court: You can't sue someone else's personal representative for breach of fiduciary duty:

The personal representatives argue that there can be no surcharge, which is a charge against a fiduciary to compensate a beneficiary for the breach of fiduciary duty, Merkel v. Guardianship of Jacoby, 862 So.2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), because there was no fiduciary duty to Harding. They point out that they are fiduciaries only of the Teresa Rosoff estate and that Harding is not a beneficiary of that estate. Harding is a beneficiary of the Molinari Trust, but the personal representatives are not fiduciaries of the trust. We are not persuaded by Harding that there is a fiduciary duty to her, but we need not decide that issue because the pursuance of the litigation by the personal representatives was consistent with the testator's intent. Although they lost and we affirmed, we noted that “Teresa's apparent intent has been thwarted.” Rosoff, 901 So.2d at 1010. The trial court was correct in finding no impropriety by the personal representatives.

• Court: You don't get fees for thwarting the testatrix's intent:

Harding also contends that she should have been awarded attorney's fees and costs for prevailing in the litigation under section 733.106, Florida Statutes (2005), because the litigation benefited the estate. In re Estate of Udell, 501 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Harding has cited no cases, however, which would support her theory that there was a benefit to the estate under these specific facts. She relies on In re Estate of McCune, 223 So.2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), in which we stated that services which carry out the intent of the testator as expressed in the will are compensable from the estate. As we previously noted, however, this litigation thwarted the testator's intent. Harding also cites Robinson v. Robinson, 805 So.2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), in which this court affirmed an award of attorney's fees to a beneficiary who successfully reformed a trust. In Robinson, however, the fees were awarded from the trust, not the estate. Under these facts, in which the litigation determined only who would be the beneficiary of the Molinari Trust, the trial court did not err in finding that there was no benefit to the estate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

I previously wrote here about the very public litigation involving guardianship proceedings for legendary New York socialite Brooke Astor.  Well, it's almost inevitable that part 2 of any guardianship case will be a fight over fees (see generally), and this case is no exception.  The following is an excerpt from In Aftermath of the Astor Case, How the Final Fees Piled Up, a New York Times piece reporting on the case:

The legal drama over the health care and finances of Brooke Astor, New York’s legendary socialite and philanthropist, played out for nearly three months amid allegations and recriminations of financial duplicity, greed and outright forgery.

The case against her son, Anthony D. Marshall, came to a halt on Oct. 13 when the parties in the feud reached a settlement, averting what could have been an expensive and sensational trial scheduled to begin less than a week later.

But everything comes with a price. In the seven weeks since the agreement, those involved in the case have filed bills with Justice John E. H. Stackhouse of State Supreme Court in Manhattan for fees totaling about $3 million for the services of 56 lawyers, 65 legal assistants, 6 accountants, 5 bankers, 6 doctors, 2 public relations firms and a law school professor. Under state law, such payments would come out of Mrs. Astor’s assets, valued at over $120 million.

But yesterday, Justice Stackhouse issued an order that approved a smaller amount, $2.22 million, calling the original figure “staggering” and saying that some charges were for work that was not in the best interest of Mrs. Astor, who is 104. The justice denied payments for the public relations firms, the time lawyers spent talking with reporters and the hours logged preparing the fee applications themselves.

Yikes!!  According to my math the court refused payment of close to $800,000 in fees.  Unless these professionals have fee agreements in place requiring the litigants/their clients to pay their fees, they just did a whole lot of free work for a $120 million+ guardianship estate.

Lesson learned:

In a guardianship case, either you need to be ready to work on a pro bono basis or you need to have an engagement agreement in place requiring whomever hires you to personally pay your fees if the court wont authorize payment of your fees from the guardianship estate.  The risk of the court refusing payment of fees will be borne by someone, just make sure that if it's going to be you the decision is a conscious one.

Source: Death and Taxes - The Blog

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

In almost all estate litigation cases attorneys' fees become an issue.  This law.com article shines the spot light on one case in particular because Greenberg Traurig, one of the country's largest and well known law firms, is involved.  But the issues in dispute are part and parcel of almost all such litigation -- which means parties need to anticipate them and plan accordingly.

Here are excerpts from the linked-to story:

Greenberg Traurig has become enmeshed in a bitter family feud between two sisters, one of whom is married to a senior partner at the law firm.

The estranged sisters, Linda J. Spector and Barbara Berlin, had both been named beneficiaries of a trust created in November 2003 by their mother, Eleanor Spector. Eleanor and Linda served as co-trustees until Eleanor's death in January 2004.

Shortly after her mother's death, Linda sought to have her then-fiancé, Albert Jacobs, the senior chair of Greenberg Traurig's national intellectual property practice, appointed co-trustee, arguing that the successor designated in trust, attorney Joel Sankel, had told her over dinner he would step aside.

*     *     *     *     *

Greenberg Traurig billed the estate almost $130,000, which is now at issue in a pending contempt motion. Sankel claims the amount should be repaid to the trust since Greenberg Traurig's services were retained for the personal benefit of Linda Spector and Jacobs, whom she eventually married.

In the contempt motion, Sankel also noted the disparity between the fees paid to Greenberg Traurig and his own firm in the course of the dispute. He noted that his firm had billed the trust $22,000 in the same time period. He is requesting invoices from Greenberg Traurig to back up charges, some of which he claims were "wholly frivolous."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Brigham v. Brigham, __ So.2d __ (Fla. 3d DCA May 31, 2006)

This case should be printed out and kept in the desk drawer of every probate litigator in Florida. Whether you find yourself defending a trustee being sued for breach of trust or prosecuting this type of claim on behalf of trust beneficiaries, you will need to be aware of this case and its profound implications.

The law in Florida is clear: a trustee defending himself in litigation involving any form of breach of trust cannot pay his legal defense fees with trust funds in the absence of a prior authorizing court order. That was Miami-Dade Judge Rothenberg's ruling at the trial court level, and here's how the Third DCA summed up this rule when it affirmed his order:

Appellees brought suit against Appellants in their trust roles and as individuals for trust mismanagement. Because Appellants defended against individual liability, their personal interests conflicted with their position as trustees. See Shriner v. Dyer, 462 So.2d 1122, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). When a trustee's individual interests conflict with his or her duties to a trust, court approval is necessary before a trustee can use trust funds to pay his or her own attorneys' fees. § 737.403, Fla. Stat. (2003).

By the way, this rule is retained under Florida's new trust code as new F.S. § 736.802(10) (see here).

Although every case is different, this opinion provides one possible road map for getting to a final ruling on this issue. Here is an extended excerpt from the opinion tracking the procedural steps and time-line in this case:

The settlor died in 2002. In June 2003, Appellees filed a multi-count complaint against Appellants alleging, among other things, undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, conversion of trust assets, mismanagement of trust assets, intentional interference, fraud, and conspiracy. Appellants were sued in their individual capacities as well as their capacities as trustee and successor trustee.

After receiving an accounting, Appellees discovered that Appellants were using trust funds to pay their legal fees in the underlying litigation. In November 2004, Appellees filed a Motion to Restrict Payment of Attorneys' Fees, arguing that Appellants were prohibited from paying their individual attorneys' fees with the trust funds and without prior Court approval.

On January 18, 2005, the trial court, after a hearing, granted Appellees' motion in part, finding that Appellants were prohibited from paying their individual attorneys' fees with trust funds, and concluding that court approval was necessary to pay litigation expenses out of the trust, as a personal conflict may exist since Appellants were sued in their individual capacities as well as in their trustee roles.

In March 2005, upon motion by Appellants, the trial court appointed a Special Master to assist the court in determining which of the attorneys' fees and costs, already paid by the trust, were for the benefit of Appellants as trustee and successor trustee rather than as individuals.

In June 2005, the Special Master issued his Report and Recommendation, noting that he "does not believe that any of the fees incurred to date can be separated into [Dana Brigham's] individual defense as opposed to [Dana Brigham's] defense as trustee," and recommending that Appellants personally pay all attorneys' fees necessary to defend themselves against the litigation, and return all monies taken out of the trust for payment of attorneys' fees in the underlying litigation.

After a hearing on Appellants' Objection to the Report and Recommendation, the trial court adopted the Report and Recommendation and held that Appellants must pay the attorneys' fees back to the trust and refrain from paying further attorneys' fees and costs with trust assets without court approval.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

McMonigle v. McMonigle, __ So.2d __ (Fla. 2d DCA Feb 17, 2006)

Note: on its own motion the Second DCA withdrew its February 17, 2006, opinion and substituted the following in its place: McMonigle v. McMonigle, __ So.2d __ (Fla. 2d DCA Mar 29, 2006)

POP QUIZ: What do you do if you're the beneficiary of an estate and you think the personal representative owes the estate a debt he's not paying up on?

[A.] File a statement of claim in the estate.

[B.] File a separate cause of action seeking declaratory relief in the form of a determination of what interests the estate has in the funds allegedly owed by the personal representative to the estate.

[C.] File a petition seeking removal of the personal representative on conflict of interest grounds and appointment of a successor personal representative to file an action to recover the alleged debt.

[D.] All of the above.

If you picked any answer other than [C.], not only would you be wrong, but according to Pasco County Judge Stanley R. Mills, you'd be liable for the other side's attorney's fees under F.S. § 57.105. The grounds for such sanctions would be that because claims pursued under options [A.] and [B.] were dismissed on lack-of-standing grounds, they lacked "justiciable issues of law or fact."

Not so says the Second DCA, which reversed the trial court's sanctions order. The beneficiary in this case was legitimately attempting to protect the interests of the estate. The fact that he initially went about it the wrong way doesn't mean his actions rise to the level of warranting attorneys-fees sanctions.

The Second DCA explained its ruling as follows:

Although [Tiedeman v. City of Miami, 529 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)] does suggest that the lack of standing may be the basis of an award of section 57.105 fees, it does not require that the fees be awarded. Clearly, Robert did not have standing to bring the separate civil action. However, the factual issues raised in the civil action were the same factual issues litigated in the probate action seeking the removal of Ronald as Personal Representative. To award fees under section 57.105, the trial court must conclude there is a total absence of a justiciable issue of either fact or law. Haas v. Roe, 696 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Fernandez v. Chiro Risk Mgmt., Inc., 700 So.2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Since the factual issues here were actionable, the trial court abused its discretion by finding a total lack of justiciable issue of fact. Because we conclude there was a justiciable issue of fact, fees should not have been awarded under section 57.105.

Furthermore, we find the facts of this case to be similar to those in O'Brien v. Sarka, 613 So.2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In O'Brien, Sarka, who was serving as the guardian of the deceased at the time of the deceased's death, filed an independent action against the estate to collect guardianship fees allegedly owed by the estate. O'Brien was a beneficiary of the estate and concluded that the personal representative had a conflict due to her business relationship with the guardian. Accordingly, O'Brien moved to intervene in the independent action, and the motion was granted. The guardian, Sarka, then moved for a judgment on the pleadings, which was granted. She then moved for section 57.105 fees against O'Brien, arguing that O'Brien should not have been allowed to intervene in the action as the estate already was represented and O'Brien's interest was but a claim under the estate. The trial court awarded the fees, but this court reversed. "As a beneficiary, [O'Brien] was attempting to protect the assets of the estate. Although her intervention was invalid, the action was not so frivolous as to require that she and her attorney be punished for attempting it." Id. at 48.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In re Estate of Wejanowski, __ So.2d __ (Fla. 2d DCA February 15, 2006)

It's not unusual for a personal representative to seek explicit prior approval from the probate judge when contemplating some sort of litigation involving the estate - even is such authority is not required. This type of pre-approval is sought pursuant to F.S. § 733.602(2), which removes liability for any act of administration of the state if the act was "authorized" at the time.

This case is an example of what can go wrong when asking a probate judge for prior approval. You may not like the answer you get. Here the personal representative filed a motion with the probate court seeking approval of costs and fees associated with prosecuting an appeal of a wrongful-death judgment pending against the estate.

The trial court denied the personal representative's motion without prejudice to resubmit the request at the conclusion of the appeal upon a showing of monetary benefit to the estate and ordered him not to expend estate funds for prosecution of the appeal, to include attorney's fees and costs.

The Second DCA reversed, essentially holding that a monetary benefit (i.e., prevailing party) standard was too high a bar for approval of fees and costs associated with an appeal, stating as follows:

Requiring [the personal representative] to show a monetary benefit to the estate before he is entitled to reimbursement for appellate expenses narrows the definition of "benefit to the estate" to an unworkable level in this appellate context. An appellate attorney has an ethical duty not to prosecute a baseless or frivolous appeal. Payment of appellate fees and costs cannot be contingent upon prevailing on appeal because neither party can guarantee the outcome. The true benefit to an estate provided by an appellate attorney is the presentation of a good-faith appeal and its ultimate resolution. Our system affords litigants the right to resolve disputes with due process, safeguarded by appellate review of the trial court's decisions. Cf. Brake v. Murphy, 693 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (reversing an order that required the personal representative and her husband to post a bond in order to file further pleadings in a surcharge proceeding because the order violated the access to the courts provision and due process clause of the state constitution).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Demayo v. Chames, 2005 WL 3180187, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2692 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov 30, 2005)

In December 2002 Henry DeMayo retained Deborah Chames and her law firm, Heller and Chames, P.A., to represent him in a post-dissolution proceeding to modify his child support and alimony obligations. The retainer agreement included the following clause:

It is specifically agreed that Heller & Chames, P.A. shall have and is hereby granted all general, possessory and retaining liens and all equitable, special and attorney's charging liens upon the client's interests in any and all real and personal property within the jurisdiction of the court for any balance due, owing and unpaid as well as a lien in any recovery whether by settlement or trial; and such lien or liens shall be superior to any other lien subsequent to the date hereof and that the client hereby knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waives his rights to assert his homestead exemption in the event a charging lien is obtained to secure the balance of attorney's fees and costs. (Emphasis added.)

In October 2003 Miami-Dade Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. granted Heller and Chames' request to withdraw from representing Mr. DeMayo and shortly thereafter entered a final judgment in the sum of $33,207.76 in favor of the law firm. The trial court expressly enforced the waiver provision of the retainer agreement.

On appeal, the Third DCA upheld the trial court's ruling on the following grounds:

[W]e see no reason why an owner of homestead property should not be able to waive [his constitutional right under Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution against divestment of homestead property via a forced sale] if he so desires. As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Caggiano, 605 So.2d at 59,"the homestead exemption *** was intended simply to guarantee that the homestead would be preserved against any involuntary divestiture by the courts****" See also Havoco, 790 So.2d at 1022 ("The homestead guarantee uses broad language protecting the homestead from involuntary divestiture****"). Absent a plain and unambiguous statement in the Florida Constitution to the contrary, we decline to imply a prohibition against a voluntary divestiture of one's constitutional right to homestead protection.

Warning: see this post: on is own motion Third DCA reconsidered this case en banc and then completely reversed itself!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

As I previously reported here, two heirs to the Gannett newspaper sued West Palm Beach, Fla.-based Gunster Yoakley & Stewart alleging that the firm colluded with its client JPMorgan Trust Co., a subsidiary of New York City-based JPMorgan Chase & Co., in running up fees for planning and administering the estate of their father, Charles McAdam Jr., a Wellington resident who was worth more than $57 million when he died in 2003.

Well, as reported in this Palm Beach Post article, the suit has not gone well for Gunster Yoakley. In a move that sent Circuit Judge Jonathan Gerber back to the books to do legal research, the jury awarded the brothers $1.2 million -- $331,496 more than the heirs requested as damages for this portion of the case. The jury found that the firm breached its fiduciary responsibility and committed legal malpractice in its handling of the estate.

And there may be more bad news to come. In a related upcoming trial the Gannett heirs will be claiming another $7 million that they had to pay in taxes and fees because of other oversights made by Gunster Yoakley. "I'm confident that we will be successful," said attorney Steven Katzman, who represented the heirs. Calling the verdict "an aberration," Donald Beuttenmuller, the managing shareholder of Gunster Yoakley, said it will be appealed.

Lesson Learned:

Estate planning and probate administrations can be complex, high-stakes affairs that even the largest and most well respected law firms get burned by on occasion. This is no place for amateurs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On September 23, 2005 the Daily Business Review reported that Broward County probate judge Mel Grossman ordered Fort Lauderdale attorney Stephen Rakusin to return $1.6 million in fees and costs that were challenged by Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, a Russian Orthodox monastery. The Monastery was represented by Robert Judd, a partner at Gunster Yoakley in Fort Lauderdale, in connection with the fee dispute.

According to the Daily Business Review, judge Grossman ruled that under the "Maxcy rule" (see Maxcy v. Citizens National Bank of Orlando, 240 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)), after four years of work on the case attorneys Stephen Rakusin and Craig Donoff (both of whom were engaged by the personal representative of the estate) would have to contend themselves with a $151,500 flat-fee originally negotiated by Donoff. Judge Grossman ruled that Rakusin's billing was a violation of the Maxcy rule because he was contracted to perform the same legal services on an hourly basis that Donoff had agreed to do for a flat fee.

Lesson learned: In probate, winning is only half the battle. Getting paid for your work is often just as difficult and hotly contested as the underlying litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Share Link

As reported in this New York Law Journal article, Manhattan law firm Graubard Miller has been hit with a suit claiming some of its partners tried to extract almost $50 million in "gifts" and unearned fees from a longtime client, the 80-year-old widow of one of New York City's largest real estate developers, Sylvan Lawrence, who died in 1981. Mr. Lawrence's estate has been embroiled in litigation ever since. Mark Zauderer of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, who represents Graubard Miller, said Ms. Lawrence's suit against the firm is aimed at avoiding paying a "well-earned fee." Ms. Lawrence, who is represented by Leslie D. Corwin of Greenberg Traurig, is seeking rescission of her retainer agreement and the return of all fees previously paid to the firm and all gifts paid to the partners. The complaint also requests punitive damages and attorney fees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Foreman v. Northern Trust Bank of Florida, N.A., 2005 WL 1553963 (Fla. 2d DCA July 6, 2005) (Trial Court Reversed)

For obvious reasons, compensation cases are always of interest to practitioners. In this latest Second DCA opinion addressing claims for attorneys fees by former counsel for a personal representative (see here for the prior Second DCA case this year involving a compensation dispute), the court reversed Sarasota County Judge Nancy K. Donnellan and held as follows:

• Former counsel for personal representative is entitled to fees for services he performed if they benefitted the estate . . . even if those services were rendered after the date he withdrew as counsel.
• Former counsel for personal representative is entitled to fees for the time he spent trying to obtain payment for services he rendered to the estate.
• Former counsel for personal representative is entitled to an award of reasonable expert witness fees. The Second DCA also noted that F.S. § 733.6175(4) "makes such an award mandatory if expert testimony is offered."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Butler v. Guardianship of Peacock, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D889 (Fla. 5 DCA April 1, 2005) (Compensation Disputes)

Marion County Circuit Court Judge Brian D. Lambert ruled that under F.S. § 744.108(1) a petitioner seeking an order to determine the incapacity of her mother was entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs incurred in the guardianship proceedings up to the date the petitioner's siblings objected to her being appointed guardian . . . fees and costs incurred thereafter were not for "services rendered on [the ward's] behalf."

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Baumann v. Estate of Blum, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D842 (Fla. 2 DCA March 30, 2005) (Trial Court Reversed)

Getting paid fairly for the work you do is sometimes merely an "aspirational" goal for attorneys. It doesn't have to be that way . . . especially when the law says you're entitled to payment. In this case, the personal representative objected to the fees his own attorney petitioned for. Hillsborough County Circuit Court Judge Susan Sexton referred the matter to a general master and then simply adopted the general master's report and recommendations wholesale without conducting a hearing.

In the course of reversing the trial court, the Second DCA provides very valuable guidance for any attorney trying to make sure he or she gets paid for services rendered.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link