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

American Home Assur. Co. v. Junger, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 1958615 (Fla. 3d DCA May 07, 2008)

It's not unusual for probate lawyers to have to figure out what to do when a lost deed or contract needs to be reestablished for some reason. The linked-to opinion is a great resource because it tells us what burden of proof to expect. Although not directly cited by the 3d DCA, I'm assuming the plaintiff filed her claim under Florida's general-purpose "lost instruments" statute: F.S. 71.011.

Evidence of Lost Insurance Policy:

The decedent's spouse, Mrs. Junger, won at trial and the court entered a judgment in her favor reestablishing her late husband's life insurance policy and awarding her $302,888 in death benefits and prejudgment interest. From a practitioner's viewpoint it's useful to know what evidence she used at trial to reestablish the life insurance policy. Here's how the 3d DCA summarized the winning evidence:

Following a bench trial, the court determined that Mrs. Junger was entitled to the death benefits described in the MAC Agreement. While neither party could produce a copy of the insurance policy, Mrs. Junger introduced the MAC Agreement into evidence as well as the correspondence among her late husband, Eastern Air Lines, and AHA. These documents confirmed that AHA issued a check to Captain Junger for $50,000 in disability benefits under “policy number 9902046” for an illness incurred while he was working for the MAC Operation. Captain Junger's cardiologist tied Captain Junger's later death to that covered illness.

The trial court concluded that the MAC Agreement evidenced the primary terms of coverage-terms confirmed by AHA's payment of the disability claim-and awarded Mrs. Junger the death benefits plus interest.

Standard of Proof for Lost Insurance Policies:

On appeal the key issue was what burden of proof should the trial court have applied: the "preponderance of the evidence" standard or the more stringent "clear and convincing evidence" standard. The 3d DCA agreed with the trial court's application of the lower standard based on the following analysis:

In support of its lost instrument argument, AHA cites a number of Florida cases that hold a clear and convincing standard of proof applies when a party has the burden of proving the contents of a lost instrument. None of these cases, however, deals with a lost insurance policy. See Fries v. Griffin, 17 So. 66, 68 (Fla.1895) (lost deed); Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Fla. v. Atl. Inv. Corp., 436 So.2d 442, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (lost lease agreement); Weinsier v. Soffer, 358 So.2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (lost loan agreement); Locke v. Pyle, 349 So.2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (lost deed).FN3 AHA submits that no Florida case applies this standard of proof to a lost insurance policy, and we have found none.

We find the lost instruments in the cases cited by AHA warrant a heightened evidentiary standard because deeds, wills, oral contracts and the like are susceptible to fraud. See 9 John Henry Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence § 2498(3) (James H. Chadbourn rev.1981). Insurance policies identified by number and known to have been issued by the insurer, on the other hand, are not as vulnerable to fraud as these other instruments. This is so because “[t]he evidence used to establish the existence and contents of [insurance] policies is usually comprised of business records and standard forms made by and found in the possession of the party against whom they are being offered.” Remington Arms Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 810 F.Supp. 1420, 1425-26 (D.Del.1992).

Similarly, the Law Revision Council Note to section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes (1976), provides that the reliability of business records justifies an exception to the hearsay rule.FN4 This exception underscores the likelihood that an insurance policy, presumably in the records of the insurer which issued it, is not vulnerable to fraudulent assertions by an insured seeking to prove the policy's contents and coverage.FN5 Accordingly, we find that an insured seeking to prove coverage under a lost insurance policy (a policy identifiable and shown to have been issued or acknowledged by the insurer) need only do so by the usual and less-stringent preponderance of the evidence standard.

Lesson learned?

If you're trying to reestablish a lost or destroyed document that could result in someone else having to pay your client money, expect resistance. This opinion let's you plan accordingly. If the goal is to reestablish a lost insurance policy, at least in the 3d DCA you now know you'll be subject to the less-stringent preponderance of the evidence standard. By contrast, if the goal is to reestablish a lost or destroyed deed, lease agreement or loan agreement you'll have to be ready to satisfy the much tougher clear and convincing evidence standard.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Julia v. Russo, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 1883905 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr 30, 2008)

Jointly titled bank accounts are often the source of much confusion . . . and litigation . . . once one of the title holders dies. A classic example of this type of litigation is when an elderly parent puts a child's name on an account for convenience purposes and then that child does something unexpected . . . like looting the account [click here].

In the linked-to case the facts are a bit more dramatic than usual. In this case boyfriend put his girlfriend's name on an investment account and a bank account as "joint tenants with right of survivorship." The accounts were funded 100% by boyfriend. Girlfriend shot and killed boyfriend. Boyfriend's estate makes the following two-step argument against girlfriend getting any of the assets in these accounts.

Step 1: Slayer Statute = Joint Tenant's Survivorship Rights Extinguished

Boyfriend's estate argued that girlfriends rights of survivorship were extinguished under Florida's Slayer Statute, F.S. 732.802(2). Here's how the 4th DCA stated the argument:

If the Slayer Statute is applied, appellant's right of survivorship is extinguished and the accounts became tenancies in common at the time the decedent died. See Capoccia v. Capoccia, 505 So.2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Unfortunately for boyfriend's estate, the trial court's order did not contain findings necessary to sustain a slayer-statute ruling, so the 4th DCA reversed this part of the trial court's order.

[T]he trial court erred in granting the Estate access to the account. For purposes of ruling on appellant's motion, the Slayer Statute was assumed to apply. There has yet to be an evidentiary hearing or any fact finding determination that appellant unlawfully and intentionally killed John Russo. Should there be such a factual determination, then and only then, would these assets pass to the Estate.

Step 2: Rebut presumption that accounts held by tenants in common are owned 50/50

In order to obtain 100% of the account funds for boyfriend's estate, not only must girlfriend's survivorship rights be extinguished, but the presumption that tenants in common own accounts 50/50 also had to be overcome. Boyfriend's estate won on this point.

“In absence of evidence to the contrary, co-tenants are presumed to owe [sic] equal undivided interests.” Levy v. Docktor, 185 B.R. 378, 381 (S.D.Fla.1995). “[U]pon the death of a cotenant, the deceased cotenant's interest in the property subject to the tenancy in common passes to his or her heirs, and not to the surviving cotenant.” 12 Fla. Jur.2d Cotenancy and Partition § 4 (1998). See, e.g., Reinhardt v. Diedricks, 439 So.2d 936, 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

The “equal share presumption” applied to tenancies in common may be rebutted by proof of unequal contribution and the absence of intent to confer a gift. See Estate of Dern Family Trust, 279 Mont. 138, 928 P.2d 123, 131-32 (Mont.1996).

As found by the trial court, appellant did not contribute any of her own funds to the accounts at issue and the decedent trusted her not to steal from him. Appellant accessed the accounts only at the behest of the decedent. The trial court specifically concluded that the decedent did not intend to make a gift to appellant of any of the money in either account.

This evidence clearly rebuts the presumption of equal contribution and the trial court correctly concluded that appellant was not entitled to any portion of the two accounts assuming the application of the Slayer Statute.

Lesson learned?

The trial court was partially reversed in this case for failing to support its slayer-statute ruling on the necessary findings of intentional and unlawful killing by girlfriend. I would assume that girlfriend is at the very least the subject of a criminal investigation in connection shooting and killing boyfriend. Until that criminal investigation gets resolved in some way, I don't see how the probate court can proceed with the civil action before it.

So why didn't the parties simply freeze the accounts until state prosecutors finished doing their job? Criminal prosecution first, slayer-statute ruling second, is the way it's usually done [click here]. Also, staying civil proceedings that overlap with criminal proceedings is common [click here]. Acting hastily with respect to a slayer-statute ruling may just end up getting you reversed on appeal . . . as the parties in this case learned.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

American United Life Ins. Co. v. Barber, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 1766916 (M.D.Fla. Apr 15, 2008)

Justin Barber was convicted in 2006 of murdering his 27 year old wife to collect on a $2.3 million life insurance policy. In an opinion I first wrote about last year [click here], the 1st DCA upheld a trial court order applying F.S. 732.802, Florida's "slayer statute," to disinherit Mr. Barber - even though his murder conviction was being appealed. In this interpleader action the federal district court for the Middle District of Florida came to the same conclusion by adopting, verbatim, the 1st DCA's analysis of the governing Florida law. The following excerpts from the district court's opinion frame the issue nicely:

Parrish argues that summary judgment should be granted in her favor. She argues that under Florida's slayer statute the judgment in Barber's criminal case is conclusive evidence of his responsibility for April's death, thereby rendering him ineligible for any distribution of life insurance benefits. In opposition, Barber argues that his appeal must be decided before his criminal judgment is “final” under the statute.

.  .  .

The First District Court of Appeal rejected this same argument raised by Barber in a case involving the same parties under one of the other life insurance policies held by April.

On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because his conviction cannot be considered final before he has exhausted his appellate rights. This argument has previously been rejected. In Prudential insurance Company of America, Inc. v. Baitinger, 452 So.2d 140, 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the insured's husband, who was the primary beneficiary of a life insurance policy, was found guilty of the insured's murder. The probate court entered an order directing the insurance company to pay the policy proceeds to the personal representatives of the insured's estate. Id. The insurance company appealed the order arguing that the husband's conviction could not be considered final due to a pending appeal. Id. at 142. The Third District Court of Appeal examined the legislative intent behind section 732.802 and determined that amendments to the statute demonstrated the Legislature's intent to make it more difficult for a killer to receive a financial benefit for his wrongdoing. Id. at 142-43. It concluded that the term “final judgment of conviction” meant an adjudication of guilt by the trial court, and it affirmed the trial court's order directing the insurance company to pay the proceeds to the personal representatives. Id. at 143. See also Cohen v. Cohen, 567 So.2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding that irreparable harm would not occur to a primary beneficiary, even if her conviction was reversed on appeal, if the estate was distributed to the remaining beneficiaries because she would be able to seek money damages from those beneficiaries).

We agree with the reasoning of the Third District in its finding that the Legislature intended a trial court's adjudication of guilt to be final for purposes of section 732.802, even if appellate remedies have not been exhausted. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee and accordingly affirm the judgment.

Barber v. Parrish, 963 So.2d 892, 893 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2007).

The Court is persuaded by this analysis by the state appellate court on this point of Florida law. While the Florida Supreme Court has not addressed this precise issue, the Court has not found any decision by the Florida courts that would call into question the conclusions reached by the First and Third District Courts of Appeal in Barber and Prudential. Thus, with Barber ineligible, Parrish, as contingent beneficiary, is entitled to the insurance proceeds.

Lesson learned:

As I've written before [click here], and as made clear by the federal court's decision in this case and the 1st DCA's prior opinion addressing the same set of facts, Florida's slayer statute does NOT require a final murder conviction to apply.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cleare v. EA Management Services, Inc., Slip Copy, 2008 WL 1711533 (S.D.Fla. Apr 10, 2008)

The linked-to case does a nice job of explaining the pleading requirements for establishing diversity jurisdiction in a case involving a personal representative. The point to keep in mind is that you have to focus on the domicile of the decedent, NOT the personal representative.  Here's how the court explained the rule:

Section 1332(c) specifically prescribes the allegations sufficient to establish jurisdiction in federal court. The district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and is between “citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (2006). Residency is not the equivalent of citizenship for diversity purposes. See 13B Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 3611 (1984).

Moreover, it is not Plaintiff's citizenship that controls whether diversity between the Parties exists. For purposes of establishing diversity pursuant to § 1332, “the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) (2006). Defendants have failed to include any allegation of the deceased Stephen Fenner's citizenship. The only allegation in the record to this effect is found in the state court Amended Complaint: “2. At all times material, Plaintiff's decedent, Stephen Fenner (“Mr.Fenner”), was a resident of Georgia.” DE 1, Ex. 4, p. 2. However, as stated above, this allegation is insufficient to establish citizenship. 13B Wright & Miller, supra.

If you're wondering why simply alleging that the decedent was a resident of Georgia doesn't cut it for purposes of pleading diversity jurisdiction, the following excerpt from 13B Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 3611 (1984), which is cited in the quoted text above, explains why:

The diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts is defined in terms of the citizenship of the parties to the action. According to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code, diversity jurisdiction exists if the action is between citizens of different states of the United States or between citizens of states of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign nations.[FN1] However, neither the Constitution nor the Judicial Code describes the degree of identification with a state or a foreign country contemplated by the term “citizen.” The definition of citizenship in this context has been left to judicial development. The result has been the evolution by the courts of the following tests for determining the citizenship of natural persons: (1) a person is considered a citizen of a state if that person is domiciled within that state[FN2] and is a citizen of the United States;[FN3] (2) a person is considered a citizen or subject of a foreign nation if he or she is accorded that status by the laws or government of that country.[FN4]

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Estate of Woodward, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 942044 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr 09, 2008)

A basic rule under Florida's probate code is that specifically-devised property is inherited subject to any existing mortgages or other encumbrances unless the decedent's will specifically directs otherwise. Here's the governing rule:

733.803 Encumbered property; liability for payment.--The specific devisee of any encumbered property shall be entitled to have the encumbrance on devised property paid at the expense of the residue of the estate only when the will shows that intent. A general direction in the will to pay debts does not show that intent.

In the linked-to case the personal representative (PR) was managing several farms that were part of a single probate estate.  The estate-administration process stretched out for several years.  During that time the PR sold one of the farms and used the sales proceeds to pay off some debt, thererby satisfying a $241,805.81 mortgage on farm property that had been specifically devised to one of the heirs.  The decedent's will did NOT state that the specifically-devised property was to be distributed debt-free.  Oops!

One of the residuary beneficiaries cried foul, arguing that under F.S. 733.803 the PR should have set aside the sales proceeds for the residuary beneficiaries of the estate, rather than paying off debt on the specifically devised property.  The PR said this rule only applied if the debt was in place at the time of distribution, but didn't stop her from paying off debt encumbering specifically devised property during the course of the probate proceeding.  Wrong answer!

No matter how long the estate-administration process takes, you can't re-write the testator's will.  Which is effectively what the PR did in this case when she paid off the debt on the specifically devised property at the expense of the residuary estate. Here's how the 2d DCA explained the rule:

The trial court's rejection of Brian's objection to the satisfaction of the encumbrance is inconsistent with the governing provision of the Florida Probate Code. Section 733.803, Florida Statutes (2002), provides that “[t]he specific devisee of any encumbered property shall be entitled to have the encumbrance on devised property paid at the expense of the residue of the estate only when the will shows that intent ” and that “[a] general direction in the will to pay debts does not show that intent.” (Emphasis added.) This statute makes clear that Jay was to inherit his father's interests in the three encumbered farms free of debt only if the will or codicil specifically expressed the decedent's intent that Jay would inherit the interests free of debt. Neither the will nor the codicil shows the intent required by the statute. Cf. In re Estate of Sterner, 450 So.2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that section 773.803 required residue of estate to pay encumbrances on property where codicil leaving life tenancy in property to specific devisee specifically stated that life tenancy was to be “free of rent and of any encumbrance of any nature whatsoever, such as taxes, liens, pledges, etc., except utilities and telephone”). Although the will states that all the decedent's legal debts should be paid, the statute plainly provides that such a general direction for the payment of debts does not evidence an intent that encumbrances on devised properties be paid at the expense of the residuary estate.

We reject the personal representative's argument that section 733 .803 only applies to encumbrances that remain unsatisfied at the time of distribution and that she had unfettered discretion to pay debts of the estate during the period of administration. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the design of section 733.803 to carry out the testator's intent with respect to the devise of encumbered property.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Chaffin v. Overstreet, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 678664 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar 14, 2008)

In contested probate proceedings involving larger estates things can quickly get messy from a jurisdictional and civil procedure perspective because people don't order their lives into nice neat categories labled "probate" and "non-probate" assets.  Heirs inevitably get in front of the probate judge and ask the court to rule on all sorts of issues that simply have nothing to do with administering the decedent's probate estate, although they may have a huge impact on the economic well being of the decedent's heirs.  A prime example of this type of hodgepodge approach to litigation is the intermixing of contested trust actions with completely unrelated probate proceedings.

In the linked-to case the personal representative of "Wife's" estate was also co-trustee of a trust established by her husband ("Husband's Trust"), a trust established by Wife and a trust referred to as the "Family Trust."  The PR filed a petition within the probate proceeding seeking to remove the co-trustee of the Family Trust.  At a hearing involving the Family Trust litigation all of sudden the probate court started entering rulings having to do with Husband's Trust.  Here's how the 5th DCA described this part of the case:

On 12 September 2006, Chaffin, acting as the personal representative of [Wife's] estate, filed a Petition to Remove Robert Clay Overstreet as Co-Trustee of the [Family Trust]. Chaffin alleged that Clay was “presently ‘unable’ to serve as Co-trustee of the [Family Trust].”  .  .  .

.  .  .

During the hearing, the trial judge also inquired about the sale of the Ham Brown Road property, which was fifty acres given in trust to Cole in [Husband's Trust]. Because the property was not part of the [Family Trust], Chaffin argued that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to rule on this issue. Nevertheless, the probate judge found that Chaffin did not have authority under the language of [Husband's Trust agreement] to sell the property. Shortly thereafter, the probate judge announced that he was requiring yearly accountings on everything that goes through the trust or probate estate.

The 5th DCA agreed with the trustee's jurisdictional objection, reversing the probate court as follows:

We .  .  .  find that Chaffin's due process rights were violated when the probate court considered issues other than the Petition to Remove Clay. The only matter noticed for hearing was whether Clay should be removed as the co-trustee of the [Family Trust]. Thus, the probate court lacked jurisdiction over the [property owned by Husband's Trust] because the issue was not sufficiently raised by the pleading and noticed for hearing. See Alvarez v. Singh, 888 So.2d 159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

In addition, we find that Chaffin was before the court solely in his capacity as co-trustee of the [Family Trust] and the probate court lacked jurisdiction over any other trusts. Although Chaffin sought the appointment of the guardian ad litem and the attorney ad litem in his capacity as trustee of [Husband's Trust] and [Wife's Trust], this was insufficient to constitute a general appearance by Chaffin in these capacities. See McKelvey v. McKelvey, 323 So.2d 651, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (holding that a general appearance will ordinarily be effected by making any motion involving the merits of a plaintiff's claim and his or her right to maintain the suit and secure the relief sought); Snipes v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 885 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Accordingly, we find that, while Clay is entitled to the use of [Family Trust] money to obtain counsel to defend against attacks brought by Chaffin, the probate court lacked jurisdiction to award Clay trust money from any other trusts. See In re Estate of Stisser, 932 So.2d 400, 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that trustees are indispensable parties and the probate court must have jurisdiction over the trustees in order to enter a ruling affecting the corpus of the trust); McLendon v. Smith, 589 So.2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that presence in one capacity does not subject a party in another capacity to the jurisdiction of the court).

Lesson learned?

If you're already in front of a probate court and it looks like a related trust may be affected by the probate litigation, you need to anticipate the jurisdictional issues and make a choice: either file a petition getting your trust in front of the same probate judge or file a separate trust action in the general-jurisdiction division of the circuit court and get your trust in front of a different judge.  There are pros and cons to either choice, but at least you've dealt with the jurisdictional issues head on (and hopefully plead the separate trust action in a way that makes sense from a procedural view point).

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Brooks v. AMP Services Ltd., --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 373423 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 13, 2008)

The prior opinion dated February 13, 2008 was withdrawn and substituted with the following in its place: Brooks v. Amp Services Ltd., --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 1806204 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. Apr 23, 2008)

At issue in the linked-to case was whether a probate court could vacate its prior order granting a NY attorney's pro hac vice motion for purely technical reasons that had nothing to do with intentional misconduct by the NY attorney and in no way adversely impacted that administration of justice here in Florida.  Although the answer should be an obvious "no", the probate court ruled the other way.  Here's how the 4th DCA explained its rationale for quashing the probate court's order:

Here, the judge revoked Brooks' admission based only on his failure to corroborate his good standing [in NY] before applying [in FL], an act which did not affect the administration of justice or disrupt any proceedings.  .  .  .

*     *     *     *     *

“The right of an attorney of another state to practice is permissive and subject to the sound discretion of the court to which he applies for the permission. The right to revoke this permission is inherent in the right to grant it.” Parker v. Parker, 97 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957). Certainly a trial court's discretion to deny a motion to appear pro hac vice, or to revoke such admission, is quite broad. See Huff v. State, 569 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla.1990); Jernigan, 751 So.2d at 681. Nevertheless, it is not absolute, and must be balanced by a party's right to representation by counsel of choice.  .  .  .

The trial court apparently accepted Brooks' explanation that he had no reason to believe he did not continue to be in good standing; it did not find he had committed any intentional misconduct, refusing to sanction him even with the imposition of a fine. Its vacation of his status was merely for a technical reason which in no way adversely impacted the administration of justice. Even if it was appropriate technically to vacate Brooks' prior admission due to his lack of good standing on July 11, the trial court should have accepted his ore tenus motion to appear pro hac vice on August 29, when that deficiency no longer applied. The trial court's refusal to do so did not serve the ends of justice and we conclude that it constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law under the facts of this case.

As a bonus point to this blog post, readers should note that that the Florida Supreme Court has provided a suggested form of pro hac vice motion in Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.510.  Counsel should always use the court-suggested form.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Young v. Kurlansik, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 508427 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 27, 2008)

The trustee of a decedent's revocable trust and the personal representative of the decedent's estate are inextricably linked because the PR has a claim on all assets of the revocable trust needed to pay probate administration expenses.  F.S. 736.05053.  Although this background information is not addressed in the linked-to opinion, I am assuming it had something to do with the underlying litigation. 

In the linked-to case the PR sued the trustee of the decedent's revocable trust over a promissory note executed by the trustee.  The PR apparently had a good day at trial, because the trial-court judge not only awarded the PR damages on the promissory note (implying the note had been breached and was no longer in effect), but also "reformed" the promissory note to include omitted terms (implying the note was still in effect and would now be enforced in accordance with the new terms added by the judge).    The trustee cried foul, arguing you can't have it both ways, and the 4th DCA agreed, reversing the trial court's judgment as follows:

In its final judgment the trial court reformed a promissory note to include omitted terms. At the same time it entered a judgment for damages based upon several legal theories that the appellants engaged in tortious conduct by omitting those terms. The amount of the damages constituted the principal amount of the note, and in her complaint appellee had requested damages and cancellation of the note.

*     *     *     *     *

We reverse the final judgment with directions that the trial court shall allow the appellee to elect her remedy. Electing reformation will permit the appellee to sue on the promissory note and foreclose on the mortgage securing the note. The promissory note and mortgage also include an attorney's fee provision. Electing a judgment for damages constitutes a disavowal of the promissory note and will require its cancellation. It will permit the appellee to obtain interest at the statutory rate instead of the promissory note rate. The trial court will then enter judgment on the remedy elected by the appellee. That remedy would include prejudgment interest, which we conclude is proper for this pecuniary loss. See Siedlecki v. Arabia, 699 So.2d 1040, 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Lesson learned?

Sometimes "probate" litigation has nothing to do with Florida's probate code.  In those cases I'm a big believer in co-counseling with competent counsel specializing in the particular type of case at issue, e.g., breach of a promissory note.  Bringing in specialized co-counsel is good for the client: the cost is usually equal to or less than the cost of paying me to handle the case solo, and the end results are usually better.  Who can argue with that math?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

RBC Ministries v. Tompkins, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 398821 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb 15, 2008)

How a will contest is framed can make all the difference in the world.  If the will is being challenged on undue influence grounds, you can forget ending the case at a summary judgment hearing once the "presumption" of undue influence is established.  The probate court in this case ruled differently, and was reversed on appeal.  The following excerpts from the linked-to opinion sum up the 2d DCA's analysis of the controlling Florida law on this point.

The rebuttable “presumption of undue influence implements public policy against abuse of fiduciary or confidential relationships and is therefore a presumption shifting the burden of proof.” § 733.107(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). Such a presumption “affecting the burden of proof”-as distinct from a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence-“imposes upon the party against whom it operates the burden of proof concerning the nonexistence of the presumed fact.” § 90.302(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). Accordingly, once a will contestant establishes the existence of the basis for the rebuttable presumption of undue influence, the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of the will to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the nonexistence of undue influence. Diaz v. Ashworth, 963 So.2d 731, 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Hack v. Janes, 878 So.2d 440, 443-44 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

*     *     *     *     *

“[O]nce the presumption arises, the undue influence issue cannot be determined in a summary judgment proceeding.” Allen v. In re Estate of Dutton, 394 So.2d 132, 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). “[A] summary judgment cannot be entered in favor of one who has the burden of overcoming the presumption of undue influence for such proceeding does not afford the contesting party the right of cross-examination and an opportunity to present rebuttal testimony.” Knight v. Knight (In re Estate of Knight), 108 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Instead, “the proponent of the contested will must come forward with a reasonable explanation of his active role in the decedent's affairs,” and “the trial court is left to decide the case in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence.” Allen, 394 So.2d at 135.

Lesson learned?

In an undue-influence case, establishing the presumption of undue influence doesn't just shift the burden of proof, it forecloses the prospect of a quick win on summary judgment for the proponent of the will.  Understanding this point is key to understanding how high the stakes are - for both sides - once a court is asked to rule on whether the presumption's been triggered.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Our court system relies in large part on voluntary compliance with the "rules of the game."  In contested probate/trust proceedings litigants can (and are expected to) vigorously compete with each other, but the system collapses in on itself if it turns into a mud-slinging free for all. 

There are all sorts of pressures, both formal and informal, that keep lawyers (and by extension their clients) in line.  But when it comes to out-of-control pro se litigants the checks-and-balances built into our court system don't work nearly as well, as explained in an excellent 2006 article by J. Caleb Donaldson entitled: Vexatious Pro Se Civil Litigants in the Massachusetts Courts (2006).  Here's an excerpt:

Pro se litigants are . . . immune from many of the . . . pressures that would cause attorneys to desist from frivolous or harassing litigation. For one thing, an attorney is a repeat player whose livelihood is at stake – a reputation as a bad-faith litigant can harm an attorney’s career long before formal sanctions apply. Attorneys are also subject to discipline from the Bar and to disbarment proceedings. A pro se litigant, therefore, is not subject to the same wide range of disincentives to vexatious, frivolous or harassing litigation. And there is an additional problem, often left unspoken. Many of the most egregious vexatious pro se civil litigants appear from their pleadings to be suffering from mental illness. Such litigants cannot be expected to respond rationally to the threat of penalties.

As a result, some pro se litigants impose undue burdens on the courts. Litigants who file harassing, duplicative or incomprehensible pleadings, and whose motion practice is meritless and disproportionate to the action at bar create a drag on the system and poison the well of goodwill toward other litigants who represent themselves. Additionally, such proceedings make a mockery of the court system and threaten the respect for the judiciary that is essential to its functioning in society.

Although the "Florida Vexatious Litigant Law" [F.S. 68.093] is specifically designed to address this problem, the statute is not fool-proof.  In fact I think the procedural hurdles built into the statute render it meaningless for the vast majority of contested probate/trust proceedings where a vexatious pro se litigant is interfering with everyone's ability to get a fair hearing on the merits. 

The following two opinions provide valuable guidance for probate counsel seeking to craft a proper response to the vexatious pro se litigant in those cases where F.S. 68.093 falls short.

4th DCA: Court to pro se litigant: Put it in writing

Bernheim v. Broberg, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 441621 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 20, 2008)

In this case the personal representative obtained an order from the probate court requiring a pro se litigant to communicate solely through writing.  The opinion doesn't explain why this order was needed, but I like it, and can easily imaging all sorts of scenarios where this minor restriction on a pro se's conduct would make everyone's life (especially the judge's) dramatically easier. 

When reading the following excerpt it's also important to note that this is NOT the type of order that can be appealed/quashed by an appellate court (i.e., you shouldn't get sucked into 6-12 months of meaningless appellate motion practice if the probate court grants this order).

This case involves .  .  .  a certiorari petition challenging an order granting the personal representative's motion to require Bernheim, who was pro se, to communicate with the personal representative and his counsel solely through writing.  .  .  .  We dismiss the certiorari petition directed to the order on communication as the petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the “jurisdictional” “irreparable harm” prong of certiorari review. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (en banc).

1st DCA: Court to pro se litigant: Go hire a lawyer

Pflaum v. Pflaum, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 425585 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb 19, 2008)

As I've written before [click here], Florida probate courts have recognized that requiring a pro se litigant to simply hire a lawyer can be a very effective tool for curbing vexatious conduct.  That's what the appellate court did in this case.  When you read the following excerpt note that the court also finds that Florida's vexatious-litigant statute does NOT apply in appellate proceedings.

Having now considered appellees' motion and appellant's response, and taken notice of Peter E. Pflaum's cases in this court and his filings therein, we conclude that imposition of a sanction is appropriate in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410 and this court's authority to control its docket. See May v. Barthet, 934 So.2d 1184 (Fla.2006); Lee v. Fla. Dep't of Corrs., 873 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Accordingly, Peter E. Pflaum is hereby prohibited from appearing before this court as appellant or petitioner unless represented by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. He is permitted 15 days from the date of this order within which to retain a Florida attorney who shall file a notice of appearance in this and his other active cases, failing which the cases will be subject to dismissal. The clerk of this court is directed to accept no further pro se filings from Peter E. Pflaum; if received, the filings shall be returned to the sender without filing and with reference to this order.

Appellees have asked this court to certify that Peter E. Pflaum is a vexatious litigant pursuant to section 68.093, Florida Statutes. That portion of appellees' motion must be denied because the statute, by its express terms, applies only to proceedings in the trial courts. That limitation, of course, does not affect our authority to impose the sanction described above. Appellees also move for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and we defer a ruling on that portion of the motion until final disposition of this proceeding. Appellees' motion to dismiss is denied at this time, but the case will be subject to dismissal if appellant fails timely to comply with the terms of this order.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

In re Estate of Cummins, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 373414 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb 13, 2008)

Florida Probate Rule 5.401(d) requires a party objecting to a personal representative's petition for discharge or final accounting to serve notice of hearing on the objections within 90 days of the date the objection is filed.  In the linked-to case counsel for the objecting party blew this deadline due to secretarial oversight. 

My personal philosophy is to never excuse a mistake by blaming my secretary for a foul up; if something goes wrong I take the hit.  However, if it's my client that's being prejudiced by something a member of my staff messed up, that's a different story.  The issue in the linked-to case was whether secretarial oversight = excusable neglect, thus allowing the objecting party to have a hearing on its objections to the PR's final accounting.  The probate judge said NO, and was reversed when the 3d DCA said YES.

Florida Probate Rule 5.402(b) allows a probate judge to extend a deadline date in certain circumstances based on "excusable neglect." Florida Probate Rule 5.402(b) provides as follows:

(b) Enlargement. When an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time by these rules, by order of court, or by notice given thereunder, for cause shown the court at any time in its discretion . . .

(2) on motion made and notice after the expiration of the specified period may permit the act to be done when failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. The court under this rule may not extend the time for serving a motion for rehearing or to enlarge any period of time governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

For future reference, I've excerpted below the operative facts and law as summarized by the 3d DCA in support of its ruling that secretarial oversight does = excusable neglect.

The Facts:

At the hearing on the abandonment of Objections, Cummins' counsel detailed the reasons for failing to comply with the ninety-day time period for filing the notice of hearing under Florida Probate Rule 5 .401(d). Counsel explained that the legal assistant responsible for procuring the hearing date was informed by the court that the presiding judge would not have a sufficient amount of time available for the hearing until September, 2007. In order to obtain an earlier hearing date, Cummins' counsel decided to utilize the services of a special master. The legal assistant attempted to schedule a hearing with the special master but was informed that the attorney for the personal representative was out of the office and that only the attorney himself could place a hearing on his calendar. Subsequently, the legal assistant instructed Cummins' counsel that she would follow-up on scheduling a hearing. However, without notice, the legal assistant ceased reporting for work in late June, 2007. On July 7, 2007, the individuals who were reassigned the legal assistant's tasks realized that the ninety-day period for sending notice had expired. Cummins' counsel attempted to obtain a hearing date, but because a full day was requested, the scheduling clerk could not immediately provide one. On July 17, 2007, a hearing date was set for August 29, 2007, at which time a notice of hearing was sent to the attorney for the personal representative. Additionally, throughout the course of the ninety days, Cummins' counsel stated that the attorney for the personal representative suggested that a “global settlement” would be forthcoming, thus rendering a hearing on the Objections unnecessary.

The Law: Secretarial Oversight = Excusable Neglect

The 3d DCA based its ruling reversing the probate judge on cases construing Civil Procedure Rule 1.090(d), which also contains an "excusable neglect" out for deadline extensions and is otherwise "almost identical" to the Probate Rule 5.042(b).  Here's how the 3d DCA framed its analysis:

The ninety-day time limit for filing a notice of hearing on the Objections is not jurisdictional. The standard of review applied to a trial court's analysis of excusable neglect is abuse of discretion. Boudot v. Boudot, 925 So.2d 409, 415 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Smith v. Smith, 902 So.2d 859, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)); State Dep't of Transp. v. Southtrust Bank, 886 So.2d 393, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing Lyn v. Lyn, 884 So.2d 181, 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). A trial court is afforded discretion to consider objections for which a notice of hearing was not served within ninety days of the filing of said objections.

In Southtrust Bank, the trial court's finding of excusable neglect pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b) was affirmed because “the secretary's oversight is precisely the type of error found to constitute excusable neglect.” Southtrust Bank, 886 So.2d at 396.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

McKoy v. DeSilvio, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 343255 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb 08, 2008)

Inheritance disputes usually play themselves out in one of three forums: [1] trust litigation, [2] probate litigation and [3] real property litigation.  The linked-to case provides solid guidance on the real-property-litigation front by addressing two frequently-litigated points involving contested deeds:

What counts as valid consideration?

One way to challenge a deed is on lack-of-consideration grounds: it's an indicator of undue influence or lack of capacity.  In the linked-to case the trial court granted summary judgment invalidating a contested deed in part on lack-of-consideration grounds.  The 2d DCA reversed the trial court's ruling on this point reminding us that when it comes to weighing consideration, it's the thought that counts, not the dollars exchanged:

Both deeds recited “consideration of the sum of $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration.” In the quiet title action, DeSilvio alleged that the deeds failed for lack of consideration. There were disputed issues of material fact on this issue. See Diaz v. Rood, 851 So.2d 843, 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (stating that “a promise, no matter how slight, can constitute sufficient consideration so long as a party agrees to do something that they are not bound to do”) (citations omitted). Notwithstanding, the circuit court ruled that the deeds were void due to a lack of consideration. In granting DeSilvio's motion for summary judgment on this ground, the circuit court erred. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (directing that summary judgment shall be granted only when the record evidence shows “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”); see also Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla .1966). Accordingly, we reverse on this point.

Is failure to properly execute a deed fatal?

The second issue on appeal was whether a deed with only one subscribing witness was fatally flawed.  The trial court said yes and the 2d DCA affirmed.  From a probate attorney's viewpoint, what's interesting about this portion of the linked-to opinion is the reference to a remedy for such cases that is NOT available when the grantor is dead:

Our reversal affects only the Herron deed, however, because the Earnshaw deed suffers from an additional deficiency. As alleged in DeSilvio's motion for summary judgment, the Earnshaw deed contained the signature of only one subscribing witness. As to this deed, the summary judgment was also based on the undisputed fact that the deed was not signed by the requisite number of subscribing witnesses. See § 689.01, Fla. Stat. (2003) (requiring presence of two subscribing witnesses to convey real estate).

The McKoys claimed that the notary also acted as a subscribing witness. But she did not sign the deed as such, and the McKoys did not file a counterclaim seeking to reform the deed. See Smith v. Royal Auto. Group, Inc., 675 So.2d 144, 153-54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (stating that reformation action may be used to supply missing signature). In any event, any such action would have required that the original grantor be joined as an indispensable party. See Palm v. Taylor, 929 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reversing judgment reforming deed when claim was not raised until amendment of complaint during trial, over objection, and when original grantor was not party to suit). Therefore, although we reverse the summary judgment as to Herron's deed, we affirm the summary judgment as to Earnshaw's deed.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Barrett v. Barrett, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 239032 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan 30, 2008)

Pro se (self-represented) litigants are not sensitive to the sanctions normally applied to counsel for bringing frivolous actions, and indigent litigants are not sensitive to fee-shifting or fines.  Little wonder then that an out of control pro se litigant can be especially difficult for both courts and opposing parties to contend with. I've written before about the "inherent power" Florida courts have to manage a vexatious pro se litigants [click here].

In the linked-to case the trustee of a family trust admitted that he had taken "several hundred thousand dollars" from the trust in the early 80's; when confronted by his brothers, he promised not to do it again and to pay the money back.  Fast forward to 2005, wayward trustee is again "experiencing financial difficulties" and again tries to dip into trust funds.  This time his brothers sued to have him formally removed as trustee.

Although he was represented by counsel for the appeal, it's unclear whether wayward trustee ("Marc"), was pro se for the underlying trial.  To me, it looks like he was pro se.  The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred when it denied his last-minute attempt to amend his answer and claim a new affirmative defense.  The trial court said no, and the 4th DCA upheld that decision as follows:

In 2005, when Marc was again experiencing financial difficulties, he attempted to interfere with the management of the trust, and his brother's filed this lawsuit seeking to have him removed as co-trustee and a declaratory judgment ordering that any funds improperly taken from the trust by Marc would be deemed advancements, to be recouped as an offset against future disbursements to Marc from the trust.

The first issue Marc raises, and the only one we address, is the denial of his motion to amend his answer to raise the defense that any money he owed the trust had been discharged in bankruptcy. The complaint was filed in October, 2005, and seventeen days before the trial in July, 2006, Marc filed a motion for leave to amend with his proposed amendment attached. The proposed amendment alleged that Marc had gone through a bankruptcy in 1985 in Colorado and that the indebtedness to the trust was based on promissory notes he had executed in the early 1980's before the bankruptcy.

*     *     *     *     *

Significantly, Marc did not attach any documents to support his statements about the bankruptcy. The court entered an order denying the motion to amend without prejudice.

The non-jury trial did not begin as scheduled in July, 2006, but did take place at the end of September, 2006. At the beginning of the trial, Marc asked the court to continue the trial for a week or two stating that the bankruptcy court had reopened his bankruptcy case. The court refused to delay the trial but agreed to “incorporate whatever the bankruptcy court says” into the final judgment. No orders or any other documents from the bankruptcy court were filed.

Amendments to pleadings under rule 1.190 should be liberally granted when justice requires, but the closer a case is to trial when amendment is requested, the less likely a denial of amendment will be an abuse of discretion. Zikofsky v. Robby Vapor Sys., Inc., 846 So.2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

If Marc, who alleged that he had just reviewed the court file of his bankruptcy, had attached documents supporting his proposed affirmative defense that these claims were discharged, we have no doubt that the trial court would have allowed him to amend. Notably, the court denied the motion without prejudice, and the trial was postponed for several months, yet Marc made no effort to support his claim by attaching documents. Under these circumstances the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

Lesson learned?

Motions to amend pleadings under Rule 1.190 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are almost always granted.  I have never objected to such motion.  This case is a good example of when "NO" might be the right answer to a motion to amend.  If a litigant appears to NOT be acting in good faith, the trial court should be willing to call him or her on it; and opposing counsel shouldn't feel constrained from asking a trial court to reign in this type of behavior . . . which in my opinion is most often seen in cases involving pro se litigants.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 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.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

Macier v. Estate of Giamportone, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 80199 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan 09, 2008)

Sometimes new assets are discovered after probate proceedings are completed and it becomes necessary to "reopen" an estate.  Examples include stocks, bonds, real estate holdings or cash.  Finding a new will after an estate is closed is NOT a valid basis for reopening an estate.  The controlling statute is F.S. 733.903, which provides as follows:

733.903. Subsequent administration

The final settlement of an estate and the discharge of the personal representative shall not prevent further administration. The order of discharge may not be revoked based upon the discovery of a will or later will.

In the linked-to case the probate court's order reopening an estate was upheld on appeal.  The three-paragraph opinion is cryptic, to say the least; but here it is:

Richard Macier and Foreclosure Management Services, Inc. appeal a non-final order of the circuit court, probate division, re-opening the Estate of Bessie Giamportone, Appellee, and denying the appellants' motion to quash service and to dismiss the motion to re-open the Estate. Inasmuch as the probate judge had jurisdiction and the power to re-open the Estate under section 733.903, Florida Statutes (2007), as well as the authority to protect an alleged property interest of the Estate, we affirm.

Macier and Foreclosure Management Services were given the courtesy of notice, based on the personal representative's knowledge of the name and address of their counsel in other litigation among the parties in the civil division of the circuit court. This afforded them the opportunity to be heard, and it also provided them actual notice of the actions taken in the probate court so that they may move to dissolve the injunction entered there.

At this interlocutory point, and with the matter apparently referred for criminal investigation, the probate judge assuredly did not abuse his discretion or disregard any controlling principle of law.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• 3d DCA: Macier v. Estate of Giamportone, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 80199 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan 09, 2008)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

Lesson learned?

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Florida a death certificate is prima facie proof of the “fact, place, date, and time of death as well as the identity of the decedent.” § 731.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). It is not conclusive proof of any fact related to the death.  If insurance proceeds are at stake, you'll need a lot more than a death certificate to prove the insured is dead [click here and here for real-life examples of this point].

In a CNN article entitled Wife of missing adventurer wants him declared dead, we get a glimpse of the quantity and quality of the circumstantial evidence Steve Fossett's wife will be submitting in Illinois to legally establish the fact of his death.  I am assuming insurance proceeds are at stake in this case.  Excerpts from the linked-to CNN article demonstrate that Mrs. Fossett is going far beyond simply filing a copy of his death certificate:

"As difficult as it is for me to reach this conclusion, I no longer hold out any hope that Steve has survived," wrote Peggy V. Fossett in court documents filed Monday with the Cook County [Illinois] Circuit Court.

She asked that the will of her husband of 38 years be admitted to probate.

*     *     *     *      *

"No one involved in the search holds out any hope that Fossett is still alive," the petition said.

Rick Rains, a sheriff's supervisor of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department, said Fossett's plane was last spotted at 11 a.m. less than 20 miles from the ranch's airport. "Given the timeline and the sighting of Fossett's plane, I believe he was within 20 to 25 miles of the ranch when he crashed," Rains said.

But, he noted, "the terrain is very difficult to search, with many areas where the crevices, deep ravines and closely grown trees make it impossible to see from the air what is on the ground."

"If Fossett was physically able to find water to survive on in the Nevada desert, he would have been physically capable of signaling searchers, by doing something as simple as crafting a large X of sticks or rocks, or by starting a signal fire," Rains said.

In affidavits supporting his wife's petition, Fossett's doctor described the 63-year-old man as physically and mentally fit.

Robert Keilholtz, a captain in the California Civil Air Patrol who was involved in the search, noted that the difficulty in finding wreckage was underscored by the fact that World War II-era plane wreckage was discovered last spring in the mountain range.

In the search for Fossett, wreckage from eight other crashes was discovered, one of them from the 1960s, the lawyers said.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

The level of interest expressed in connection with the million dollar malpractice verdict against Gunster recently upheld by the 4th DCA [click here] is so high, I've decided to post copies of the 200+ pages of appellate briefs filed in that case as follows:

• Initial Brief of Appellants, Gunster Yoakley and Daniel Hanley
• Appendix to Initial Brief of Appellants, Gunster Yoakley and Daniel Hanley
• Answer Brief of Appellees Initial Brief of Cross-Appellants
• Appendix to Brief of Appellees/Cross-Appellants
• Reply Brief and Cross-Appeal Answer Brief of Appellants, Gunster Yoakley and Daniel Hanley
• Reply Brief of Cross-Appellants
• Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. v. McAdam, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2376658 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 22, 2007)

What do you make of the briefs; what could Gunster have done differently?

The 4th DCA's opinion is woefully lacking in the sort of factual detail needed to provide real day-to-day guidance to practitioners or future litigants.  To make any sense out what happened here, you need to read the briefs.  Rather than attempting to figure out the briefs on my own, I'd like to tap into the collective wisdom of the readers of this blog.  After you've read the briefs, please post a comment answering the following question:

QUESTION:

Assuming the 4th DCA correctly decided the case, and everyone was acting in good faith and in the best interest of the client, what could Gunster could have done differently to avoid being sued?

Your comments will hopefully help all of us avoid being the target of the next estate-planning/ probate malpractice claim.  If you're a law student, banker, accountant, etc., I'd like to hear from you too.  Every Florida attorney who reads this blog will appreciate your thoughts (which can be posted anonymously), and I'm guessing that "crowdsourcing" these appellate briefs will result in collective insights none of us on our own would have ever dreamed of.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Wolfe v. Stevens, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2891413 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct 05, 2007)

Florida is the largest recipient of state-to-state migration in the U.S.  Here are a few stats from State-to-State Migration Flows: 1995 to 2000, a U.S. census report:

Florida’s net domestic migration of 607,000, the largest of any state, came primarily from states in the Northeast, particularly New York, which had a net contribution of 238,000 to Florida. Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania also had substantial net outmigration to Florida.

Is it any wonder then that Florida probate proceedings often require service by publication when an individual cannot be located in Florida?

The linked-to case is instructive because it reports on a personal representative that got service by publication WRONG.  Which means we now all have a specific example of what NOT to do if we want to make our next attempted service by publication stick.

Here's why the 2d DCA said the PR got it wrong:

Stevens, as personal representative of her mother's estate, sued Wolfe alleging that he had defrauded their mother out of her home by falsifying Stevens' and the mother's signatures on a “Deed to Trust .” Approximately two months after filing suit, Stevens filed a sworn statement for constructive service pursuant to sections 49.031 and 49.041, Florida Statutes (2005), and subsequently served Wolfe by publication. Wolfe did not respond, and the trial court entered a default final judgment against him. Approximately seven months later, Wolfe moved to set aside the final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 on the ground that service was defective because Stevens had failed to conduct a diligent search before resorting to service by publication. The trial court denied Wolfe's motion finding that he had actual notice of the final judgment and that in failing to act diligently to set it aside, “he was not reasonable.”

“‘When a complainant resorts to constructive service, he should make an honest and conscientious effort, reasonably appropriate to the circumstances, to acquire the information necessary to fully comply with the controlling statutes, to the end that the defendant, if it be reasonably possible, may be accorded notice of the suit.’“ Gmaz v. King, 238 So.2d 511, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (quoting Klinger v. Milton Holding Co., 186 So. 526, 534 (1939)). If constructive service is challenged on the ground that the plaintiff failed to conduct a diligent search, the trial court must determine whether the plaintiff “reasonably employed knowledge at his command, made diligent inquiry, and exerted an honest and conscientious effort appropriate to the circumstances, to acquire the information necessary to enable him to effect personal service on the defendant.” McDaniel v. McElvy, 108 So. 820, 831 (Fla.1926); see Gmaz, 238 So.2d at 514. Further, “when a ‘red flag’ is waved to a complainant notifying or warning him of facts which put him on a reasonable course of inquiry as to the whereabouts or residence of a party-defendant to his law suit, he is bound to follow that course to its logical end.” Id.

Stevens had notice of facts that she should have followed before resorting to service by publication. The record indicates that when Stevens filed her complaint she and her attorney knew that Wolfe was represented by counsel. However, instead of contacting Wolfe's attorney regarding the lawsuit, Stevens filed an affidavit of diligent search and inquiry and proceeded to serve Wolfe by publication. At the hearing on Wolfe's motion to set aside the final judgment, Stevens' attorney admitted he had the address and phone number of Wolfe's attorney and that he could have notified him of the lawsuit but he “made the decision, knowing all the circumstances regarding the accusations that were going back and forth, that I would rather go the statutory route.” Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that Stevens exercised due diligence in attempting to locate Wolfe. Accordingly, service by publication was improper. See Levenson v. McCarty, 877 So.2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that where the plaintiff made no attempt to contact the defendant by telephone or through his known attorneys, service by publication was improper); Torelli v. Travelers Indem. Co., 495 So.2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (holding that the plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to locate the defendant where she failed to follow an obvious lead to the defendant's whereabouts by inquiring of the defendant's known attorney).

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

One of the primary benefits of mediating trusts-and-estates disputes is that the mediation session focuses everyone's attention and brings the case "to a head" in much the same way as a trial date; except it happens before the parties pour huge sums of money - and time - into pretrial discovery and motion practice. Taking full advantage of this window of opportunity requires thorough preparation, and nothing beats a good checklist when it comes to making sure you've covered all your basis.

California attorney and mediator David Laufer has just published the "mother" of all premediation checklists in How To Prepare Fo