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

United States v. MacIntyre, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2012 WL 2403491 (S.D. Tex. June 25, 2012)

A personal representative ("PR") is personally liable for paying the decedent's remaining tax bills, be they income taxes, gift taxes or estate taxes. That's right, when you say "yes" to serving as someone's PR, you also say "yes" to personally guaranteeing their back taxes are paid up. Not to worry though, as I previously wrote here, if you take advantage of the risk-management tools built into the tax code, this is a problem no one need lose sleep over. But get this wrong, and things can turn ugly real fast.

Is the IRS bound by your bad legal advice? NO

In 1995, J. Howard Marshall, II made a $35 million taxable gift to certain family members, including his ex-wife Eleanor Pierce Stevens ("Stevens"). For better or worse, Marshall Sr is probably best known for having been married to Anna Nicole Smith during the last 14 months of his life. If you're a trusts and estates lawyer, you can thank the Marshall estate and Anna Nicole Smith for some of the most high profile probate litigation in years [click here, here]. The Marshall name is shaking up the probate world again: this time around it's fiduciary liability for a decedent's unpaid taxes.

Marshall Sr never paid the tax due on his $35 million gift, and neither did his estate. By operation of law liability for Marshall Sr's tax liability shifted to the gift's recipients or "donees," including Stevens [click here for the back story]. Stevens died in April 2007, shifting her tax liability to her estate. E. Pierce Marshall, Jr. (“Marshall Jr”) became the sole executor of her estate and Finley L. Hilliard (“Hilliard”) was the trustee of her revocable trust. By its terms, Stevens' revocable trust was liable for her estate's taxes.

So what went wrong?

At some point Marshall Jr and Hilliard were told by their lawyers the IRS couldn't collect on the estate's unpaid gift-tax liability, so they went ahead and distributed estate assets without paying the tax. When the IRS came after them personally for the estate's unpaid taxes, they claimed ignorance. Not because they didn't know the gift-tax liability existed, but because they relied on their lawyer's bad tax advice. Wrong answer. Legal opinions are great ways to shift risk to your lawyers, but that's all you're doing. Tax opinions aren't shields against tax claims; the IRS isn't bound by your bad legal advice.

The Tax Court has articulated the elements of § 3713 liability as (1) a fiduciary; (2) distributed the estate's assets before paying a claim of the United State and (3) knew or should have known of the United States' claim. Huddleston v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo.1994–131, 1994 WL 100520 at *6 (U.S. Tax Ct.1994); see also Leigh v. Comm'r, 72 T.C. 1105, 1110 (U.S. Tax Ct.1979). “[I]n order to render a fiduciary personally liable under 31 U.S.C. [§ 3713], he must first be chargeable with knowledge or notice of the debt due to the United States....” Leigh, 72 T.C. at 1109 (construing a virtually identical earlier version of the statute). “The knowledge requirement ... may be satisfied by either actual knowledge of the liability or notice of such facts as would put a reasonably prudent person on inquiry as to the existence of the unpaid claim of the United States.” Id. at 1110.

**********

As explained above, the knowledge requirement is not actual knowledge. Leigh, 72 T.C. at 1110. It is sufficient to show that the fiduciary had “notice of such facts as would put a reasonably prudent person on inquiry as to the existence of the unpaid claim.” Id. Neither Marshall nor Hilliard contend that they were never told that the IRS might try to make a claim against Stevens for the unpaid gift taxes on the Gift. In fact, they admit that they were both told that the IRS might try to assert a claim against Stevens's Estate for donee liability on the Gift. Instead they argue that they did not believe the IRS's claim against Stevens was valid for various reasons. But, as the government points out, Marshall and Hilliard's belief in the validity of the government's claim is not the test. Marshall and Hilliard had sufficient notice of the claim to put a reasonably prudent person on notice. It is regrettable that they received incorrect advice on that point, but poor legal advice is not a defense. Despite their belief that the government's claim was not valid, Marshall and Hilliard were required by § 3713 to preserve the funds to pay the government's claim-should it be proved valid. Accordingly, Marshall and Hilliard both meet the test for individual liability under § 3713 and are therefore personally liable for distributions made from Stevens's Estate and Trust.

Is failing to pay taxes a breach of fiduciary duty? YES 

This probably comes as a surprise to most PR's, but a decedent's unpaid creditors, including the IRS, have standing to sue you for breach of fiduciary duty if you screw up. And not paying taxes qualifies as a major screw up. So to make matters worse, if you muck up an estate's taxes, not only are you personally on the hook for this mess, you may also get sued for breach of fiduciary duty. That's what happened in this case.

The government argues that Marshall, as Executor of Stevens Estate, breached his fiduciary duty to pay the taxes due the IRS on the estate in the order and manner they were due. In effect, it urges that Marshall's breach is coterminous with his personal liability under § 3713. The court agrees. Insofar as the court held above that Marshall was individually liable to the government pursuant to § 3713, he has also breached his fiduciary duty as an Executor under state law. See In re Tomlin, 266 B.R. 350, 354 (N.D.Tex.2001).

The question is, why would the IRS go through the trouble of suing you for breach of fiduciary duty if you're already personally liable as a matter of federal tax law? Answer: to make sure you don't dodge this bullet by declaring bankruptcy. As I previously wrote here, here, a breach-of-duty judgment against a PR (or trustee) is NOT dischargeable in bankruptcy. Why? Because under bankruptcy code section 523(a)(4) this kind of judgment is deemed the product of “fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.”

Lesson learned? Forewarned is forearmed:

The best way to win a tax case is to not get sued by the IRS in the first place. You can't do that with a legal opinion. You can do that by making the IRS tell you in advance if there are any unpaid taxes. How do you do that? Click here. Forewarned is forearmed.

“The truly wise man, we are told, can perceive things before they come to pass; how much more than those that are already manifest.”

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

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

Who serves as personal representative (PR) of an estate can have huge real-world consequences. For example, under F.S. 768.20 only the PR has standing to bring a wrongful death suit on behalf of the estate and the survivors [click here]. Also, in contested probate proceedings, the PR is presumed to have direct and confidential access to all of the decedent's privileged papers/ medical records, as well as access to estate funds to pay legal fees. These facts probably explain why PR rulings are often appealed, shining a light on a recurring problem.

For reasons unclear to me, probate judges seem especially challenged by the law governing when/how a judge can remove a serving PR, or when/how a judge can refuse to appoint a PR with statutory preference under F.S. 733.301. These cases get appealed all the time, almost always resulting in reversals [e.g., see here, here, here, here, here].

If there's one word that sums up where these cases go wrong it's: EVIDENCE. Or more precisely, the lack thereof. Probate judges are given a great deal of latitude when asked to decide estate administration issues. But those decisions must be based on evidence, adduced at properly noticed evidentiary hearings; not on the fly based on counsel arguments at a 15-minute hearing. That's the lesson to be drawn . . . again . . . from the latest batch of appellate decisions reversing three probate judges on opposite sides of the state (1 in Tampa, 2 in Miami) who failed to adhere to this simple rule.

Zulon v. Peckins, --- So.3d ----, 2012 WL 933013 (Fla. 3d DCA February 08, 2012):

In this case a Miami PR was removed without notice or evidentiary basis. In another case dealing with another Miami PR just last year, the 3d DCA held in Estate of LoCascio this kind of ruling is reversible error. One year later, nothing's changed: it's still reversible error:

The appellant, Elizabeth Zulon, appeals from an order of the probate court removing her as co-personal representative of her father's estate. Because removal was ordered without notice or an evidentiary hearing, “the ruling did not meet even the most rudimentary requirements of due process.” LoCascio v. Estate of LoCascio, 78 So.3d 573, 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). We reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the co-personal representatives; FN1 discharge Mr. Peckins as successor personal representative; and conduct a duly noticed evidentiary hearing regarding the removal of Elizabeth Zulon and Ana Zulon as co-personal representatives.

Lezcano v. Estate of Hidalgo, --- So.3d ----, 2012 WL 1414826 (Fla. 3d DCA April 25, 2012):

In yet another Miami case, yet another probate judge got reversed for removing yet another Miami PR without notice or an evidentiary hearing. Go Miami!!

Mercedes Lezcano appeals an order of the probate court, removing her as personal representative of the estate and co-trustee of the trust of her deceased brother pursuant to a generalized order instructing her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for a purported failure, in her capacity as personal representative, to comply with “[certain] orders [of the court]” and “failing to place all income and assets into [a] restricted depository” and related alleged misdeeds. “Because [the] removal[s were] ordered without notice or an evidentiary hearing, ‘the ruling did not meet even the most rudimentary requirements of due process.’ “Zulon v. Peckins, No. 3D11–1511, 2012 WL 933013, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 21, 2012) (quoting LoCascio v. Estate of LoCasio, 78 So.3d 573, 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)). We reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate Lezcano as personal representative of the estate and co-trustee of the trust, and discharge Mr. Mendez as curator of the estate.

Bowdoin v. Rinnier, --- So.3d ----, 2012 WL 639005 (Fla. 2d DCA February 29, 2012):

In this case the decedent died intestate. Under F.S. 733.301 the decedent's husband has statutory priority for appointment as PR. However, a court isn't bound by F.S. 733.301 if there's evidence proving the statutorily preferred person “lacks the necessary qualities and characteristics” to serve as PR. But again, the key word is evidence. Unproven allegations won't cut it, even if the person making those allegations is the decedent's mother.

A circuit court has discretion to appoint someone other than the preferred person as personal representative of an intestate estate. In re Estate of Snyder, 333 So.2d 519, 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Garcia v. Morrow, 954 So.2d 656, 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). However, where a statutorily preferred individual is not appointed, the record must show that the preferred person is not fit to serve as personal representative. DeVaughn v. DeVaughn, 840 So.2d 1128, 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). If the record supports the conclusion that the preferred person “lacks the necessary qualities and characteristics” to act as personal representative, the court has discretion to refuse to make the appointment. Padgett v. Estate of Gilbert, 676 So.2d 440, 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Ms. Rinnier produced no witnesses or evidence at the hearing to show that Mr. Bowdoin was disqualified from serving. Although we understand the dilemma faced by the circuit court given the serious nature of the allegations contained in Ms. Rinnier's petition, she was nevertheless required to support those allegations with evidence. In the absence of such an evidentiary basis, the circuit court was not free to appoint someone other than Mr. Bowdoin. We therefore reverse the circuit court's appointment of Ms. Rinnier and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Mr. Bowdoin, as the person having statutory preference, lacks the necessary qualities to administer his wife's estate. See id.

 

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

 LoCascio v. Estate of LoCascio, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 2555644 (Fla. 3d DCA June 29, 2011)

Silvia Locascio's brutally beaten corpse was found in her home on October 30, 2001. Eventually her husband and brother-in-law were found guilty of her murder - based in large part on the testimony of the couple's only son. Click here, here for more on the back story to this tragic case.

In this latest -- and hopefully final -- chapter of this very sad case, the 3d DCA reversed a probate order summarily removing the decedent's son as PR of her estate. This court order was just as summarily reversed by the 3d DCA in the following one-paragraph opinion:

Edward J. LoCascio appeals from an order removing him as successor personal representative of his deceased mother's estate. See LoCascio v. Sharpe, 23 So.3d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also Golden & Cowan, P.A. v. In re Estate of Locascio, 41 So.3d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Because the “hearing” which preceded the ruling did not meet even the most rudimentary requirements of due process, including without limitation the presentation of evidence, it is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the appellant as personal representative and for the prompt final resolution of this already over-protracted proceeding.FN1

FN1. We consider that this ruling obviates any reason for a curator or any other extraneous entity to administer the estate.

In order to understand this opinion I think you need to keep two points in mind.

First, the family tragedy at the heart of this case has been the subject of multiple criminal and probate trials plus 9 appeals as far as I can tell. By now -- 10 years after Mrs. Locascio's murder -- the 3d DCA is tired of this case and wants it to go away (note the court's gratuitous reference to "prompt final resolution of this already over-protracted proceeding" and its parting shot in FN1).

Second, the 3d DCA's emphasis on due process underscores the importance Florida law gives to the office of personal representative/PR. Probate judges do not have unfettered discretion to simply remove a PR because someone shows up in court and starts complaining. There needs to be evidence of wrongdoing, and that evidence needs to be presented at an evidentiary hearing affording all concerned with all of the due process protections Florida law affords to such litigants.

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

Hill v. Davis, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 3847252 (Fla. Sep 01, 2011)

I previously wrote here about the split between the 1st DCA and the 3d DCA regarding whether the 3-month statute of limitations period contained in F.S. 733.212(3) applies to personal-representative disqualification motions. The statute provides as follows:

(3) Any interested person on whom a copy of the notice of administration is served must object to the validity of the will, the qualifications of the personal representative, the venue, or the jurisdiction of the court by filing a petition or other pleading requesting relief in accordance with the Florida Probate Rules on or before the date that is 3 months after the date of service of a copy of the notice of administration on the objecting person, or those objections are forever barred.

3d DCA said NO, statute doesn't apply to PR disqualification motions, 1st DCA said YES it does. The Florida Supreme Court has now weighed in, holding that YES, the  the 3-month statute of limitations period contained in F.S. 733.212(3) DOES apply to personal-representative disqualification motions.

The issue before us is whether an objection to the qualifications of a personal representative of an estate is barred by the three-month filing deadline set forth in section 733.212(3), Florida Statutes (2007), a provision of the Florida Probate Code, when the objection is not filed within that statutory time frame. For the reasons explained below, we hold that section 733.212(3) bars an objection to the qualifications of a personal representative, including an objection that the personal representative was never qualified to serve, if the objection is not timely filed under this statute, except where fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct with regard to the qualifications is not apparent on the face of the petition or discovered within the statutory time frame. Accordingly, because fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct was not alleged in relation to the objection to the personal representative in this case, we approve the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Hill.FN1 To the extent that the decision of the Third District in Angelus involved allegations of fraud and misrepresentation not revealed in the petition for administration, we approve the result in Angelus. However, we disapprove Angelus to the extent that it holds section 733.212(3) does not bar objections that a personal representative was never qualified to serve. We turn first to the facts of this case.

FN1. This case does not involve a proceeding filed under probate code sections 733.504, Florida Statutes (2007), and 733.506, Florida Statutes (2007), which provide for an adversary proceeding to remove a personal representative for reasons set forth in section 733.504. Thus, our decision in this case is limited to objections filed pursuant to section 733.212(3).

 

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

Long v. Willis, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 3587411 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug 17, 2011) 

Most people (including most lawyers) assume that a minor's parents, i.e., a minor's "natural guardians" under F.S. 744.301, can make all decisions on behalf of their children, and that this authority extends to voting on behalf of their children under F.S. 733.301 with respect to who gets appointed personal representative (PR) of an estate when applying the "majority in interest of the heirs" test. WRONG answer: under subsection (2) of F.S. 733.301, a minor's parent/natural guardian is NOT authorized to vote on behalf of his or her child with respect to who gets appointed PR; you need a court-appointed guardian of the property to vote on behalf of the minor.

This all makes sense if you remember two points: [1] any time a minor (i.e., someone under 18) inherits $15,000+, a court-appointed guardian of the property is mandatory; and [2] a PR is only required for estates having a value of at least $75,000 (i.e., estates too large to qualify for summary administration). In other words, if the estate is too small to trigger the $15,000-guardian requirement, it's probably too small to need a PR, and vice versa.

Case Study:

In this case the parent/natural guardian of one of the decedent's heirs sought to vote on behalf of her three minor children for the appointment of PR of their father's estate. The decedent, who died intestate, had married and divorced twice prior to his death, so his only heirs were his two adult children from his first marriage and his three minor children from his second marriage. The appellant in this case was the decedent's second ex-wife and the mother of his three minor children.

The 2d DCA does an excellent job of dissecting the interrelated probate statutes and rules at play in this type of situation while also delivering solid practical advice for how the different (and apparently conflicting) timing requirements can all be made to work together in a reasonable manner. This kind of appellate-court-sanctioned statutory road map is gold for practicing probate lawyers.

[1.]  Is a court-appointed guardian of the property necessary to exercise a minor's vote in the appointment of a PR? YES

Ms. Long argues that as the natural guardian of Mr. Long's three minor children, she represents the majority in interest of the heirs and, therefore, has the right to select the personal representative. Significantly, the statute does not entitle a natural guardian to such a right. Rather, section 733.301(2) provides that “[a] guardian of the property of a ward who if competent would be entitled to appointment as, or to select, the personal representative may exercise the right to select the personal representative.” (Emphasis added.)

Ms. Long admits that the court never appointed her as the guardian of the property of her children, but she nevertheless claims that as their parent and natural guardian, under In re Estate of Phillips, 190 So.2d 15, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), she should have this power. In Phillips, which involved a dispute over the domicile of the decedent at the time of his death, the Fourth District affirmed that the decedent's five-year-old son, acting through his mother and natural guardian, the decedent's former spouse, was entitled to preference in selecting the administrator under section 732.44, Florida Statutes (1965), because he was the decedent's sole heir and next of kin. Id.

After the Phillips decision, the legislature replaced section 732.44, which gave appointment preference to the decedent's “next of kin” but provided no guidance for circumstances in which the next of kin was legally incompetent. The replacement statute, section 733.301, addresses the issue of legally incompetent heirs by clearly and unambiguously limiting the right to select a personal representative to the guardian of the property of such heirs, not to their natural parents. The legislature appears to have the right to create this limitation.

Thus, the probate court correctly ruled that Ms. Long could not vote for her children. 

[2.]  If a parent is served with a 20-day formal notice of someone else's petition for appointment as PR, does this parent have only 20 days to petition for and obtain an order appointing a guardian of the property and for that guardian to vote/object on behalf of the minor? NO

We conclude the probate court erred in ruling that Mr. Long's children were time-barred from challenging the right of their aunt to appointment and that it was without authority to allow these children to seek the appointment of a guardian of the property. First, although Florida Probate Rule 5.040(a)(2) provides that where an interested person on whom formal notice is served does not serve written defenses within twenty days, the probate court may consider the pleading ex parte, Florida courts treat this rule as merely procedural; it is “‘in no sense’ a statute of limitations or a mandatory non-claim provision.” Tanner v. Estate of Tanner, 476 So.2d 793, 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Applying this reasoning in Tanner, the First District held that where the decedent's beneficiaries filed a joint answer to the petition for administration asserting defenses five days after the time for answers had expired but before the hearing on the petition for administration and the order granting letters, the answer was timely filed. Id. Here, as in Tanner, Ms. Long, on behalf of Mr. Long's minor children, filed the objection to the appointment of Ms. Willis as personal representative just four days after the twenty-day answer period expired and well before the probate court issued the order granting letters. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court had the authority to consider and should have considered the minor children's objection before the issuance of letters.

Second, we are convinced that the probate court had authority to allow Mr. Long's minor children the opportunity to participate in the vote of the heirs. See § 733.301(1)(b)(2). By requiring a guardian of the property, section 733.301(2) creates significant procedural impediments for minor children who wish to participate in the selection of a personal representative in a contested proceeding. When there is no conflict within a family, such children may well have time to obtain a guardian of the property before the petition for administration is filed. But in a case like this, even if the mother had understood the law, she could not realistically have obtained a guardian of the property for the children and allowed that guardian to vote for the children within the twenty-day response time. We conclude that the probate court had authority and should have allowed Ms. Long a reasonable time to obtain a guardian of the property to vote for the children.

 

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

Stalley v. Williford, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 4967982 (Fla. 2 Dist. Dec 08, 2010)

Probate courts can get reversed for refusing to appoint as personal representative (PR) the person with preference under F.S. 733.301. Don't get me wrong, probate courts do have the inherent authority to override this statute, but only if there are specific findings of fact - developed in the context of a formal evidentiary hearing - that the statutorily preferred person lacks the "qualities and characteristics" necessary to serve as PR [click here].

In the linked-to case the probate court attempted to exercise its inherent authority to override the PR-preference statute, but failed to support its order with evidence suggesting the statutorily preferred person was unfit to serve as PR. No evidence of unfitness = reversal. Here's why:

Pamela Lynn Williford died in 2008, leaving two minor children as the sole heirs of her intestate estate. Douglas Stalley was tendered by the children as a suitable personal representative, but the circuit court appointed Williford's father, Harrison Williford, instead. This appointment was contrary to the statute prescribing the order of preference for appointment of a personal representative in this case. Accordingly, we reverse.

The statute, section 733.301, Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the following order of preference in appointment of a personal representative of an intestate estate:

1. The surviving spouse.

2. The person selected by a majority in interest of the heirs.

3. The heir nearest in degree.

§ 733.301(1)(b).

There was no surviving spouse in this case. Douglas Stalley was the person selected by both heirs, acting through the guardians of their property as authorized under section 733.301(2). Thus, Stalley should have been appointed unless otherwise disqualified. Cf. §§ 733.302, 303 (providing qualifications for personal representative); In re Estate of Snyder, 333 So.2d 519, 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (holding, under earlier version of statute, that court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint person with statutory preference where he lacked “the qualities and characteristics necessary to properly perform the duties”).

There was a complete absence of evidence to suggest that Stalley was unfit to serve. Thus, the court abused its discretion by appointing the decedent's father rather than the representative chosen by the heirs.

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

Hill v. Davis, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 1347314 (Fla. 1st DCA March 31, 2010)

In civil litigation you usually have years to file your complaint: most statue of limitations periods fall within a range of 2 to 6 years. Not surprisingly, most civil litigators assume the same rules apply to probate litigation. Big mistake! In probate litigation your statute of limitations period can be as little 30 days, with the norm being 3 months. These ultra-short limitations periods are unforgiving traps for the unwary and - not surprisingly - a recurring topic on this blog [click here, here].

Personal Representative Disqualification Motions:

In this case, the issue was whether the 3-month statute of limitations period contained in F.S. 733.212(3) applied to personal-representative disqualification motions. In contested probate proceedings the party serving as personal representative has significant advantages. So knowing when the window of opportunity closes to file a disqualification motion is very important.

According to the 3d DCA in Angelus v. Pass, 868 So.2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), a case I wrote about here, the answer is NO, this 3-month statute of limitations period does NOT apply. In the linked-to case above, the 1st DCA comes to the opposite conclusion, explicitly rejecting the 3d DCA's ruling in Angelus and certifying a conflict between the DCAs.

[W]e disagree with the sweeping holding in Angelus because it effectively renders part of section 733.212(3) meaningless. . . . The statute clearly states that interested persons such as appellant “must object to ... the qualifications of the personal representative” within three months of the service of the notice of administration or such an objection is “forever barred.” A claim that a nonresident is not qualified to serve as a personal representative pursuant to section 733.304 is an objection to “the qualifications of the personal representative” and should be subject to the clear and unambiguous provisions of section 733.212(3). . . . Contrary to the Third District's decision in Angelus, we find nothing in Florida Probate Rule 5.310 or sections 733.304 and 733.3101, Florida Statutes, which would preclude the application of the three-month statute of limitations period contained in section 733.212(3) to appellant's claim that appellee was not qualified to serve as a nonresident personal representative pursuant to section 733.304 where the factual basis for the claim was known to appellant and could have been raised within the three-month period. This is not a situation where the factual basis for the claim of disqualification was concealed from appellant or arose after the three-month period had expired. Because appellant's motions to disqualify appellee as personal representative were time barred under section 733.212(3), we affirm the trial court's denial of the motions on that basis. We also certify conflict with Angelus.

Lesson learned?

If your client is contemplating a personal-representative disqualification motion, you have to assume the 3-month statute of limitations period contained in F.S. 733.212(3) applies (unless you're in the 3d DCA). If your case is being litigated in a court that doesn't fall under either the 1st DCA or the 3d DCA, you now have two different approaches you can argue depending on what side of the case you're on.

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

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

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

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

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

.     .     .     .     .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wheeler v. Powers, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 160881 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan 18, 2008)

Standing:

In Florida whether or not you have standing to litigate a probate dispute depends on whether or not you're an "interested person," as defined by F.S. § 731.201(21):

(21) “Interested person” means any person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the particular proceeding involved. In any proceeding affecting the estate or the rights of a beneficiary in the estate, the personal representative of the estate shall be deemed to be an interested person. In any proceeding affecting the expenses of the administration and obligations of a decedent's estate, or any claims described in s. 733.702(1), the trustee of a trust described in s. 733.707(3) is an interested person in the administration of the grantor's estate.... The meaning, as it relates to particular persons, may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular purpose of, and matter involved in, any proceedings.

In this case the primary issue on appeal was whether the Florida Probate Code's interested-person definition includes a nominated personal representative under a prior will.  The probate court said no, the 5th DCA said YES . . . but added the following proviso:

However, we do not suggest that every personal representative from every prior will should be granted standing. As stated in [Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So.2d 498, 507 (Fla.2006)], the definition of “interested person” is fluid and “must be determined according to the particular purpose of, and matter involved in, any proceeding.” 952 So.2d at 507. In this case, Dorothy was of sound mind when she prepared her 2001 Will and placed Mr. Wheeler in fiduciary positions. Nearly four years later and six weeks before she was involuntarily hospitalized with late stage Alzheimer's disease, she removed Mr. Wheeler from the Will and added her previously disinherited stepson.


Mr. Wheeler allegedly lost standing under Dorothy's 2001 Will due to undue influence. He was the alternate personal representative and co-trustee for approximately four years until Dorothy changed her Will under suspicious circumstances. Under these circumstances, we find that Mr. Wheeler is an “interested person” within the meaning of section 731.201(21). Therefore, we reverse the trial court's denial of relief on this claim.

Because we conclude that Mr. Wheeler has standing as an alternate personal representative under a prior Will, we need not reach the issue of whether Mr. Wheeler has standing as a co-successor trustee under a prior trust.

The take-away from this part of the case is that the named PR under a prior will "may" have standing if a win at trial would result in the appointment of the PR under the prior will.  It's also important to note that unlike most other forms of litigation, standing for purposes of contested probate proceedings is not limited to parties having an economic stake in the outcome.  A testator's right to designate whom will be his PR is of such importance that this status alone can be the basis for standing to litigate.  I've written before about the deference given under Florida law to a testator's selection of his PR [click here].

Caveat:

In this case the named PR  had also taken the  prudent step of filing a caveat.  Unfortunately, the clerk of the court failed to comply with its obligation to notify him when a petition to file the later-signed will was filed.  When the named PR sought to have the probate proceeding revoked on this basis the probate court ruled against him, and was again reversed on appeal for the following reason:

Another issue raised on appeal is whether probate of the 2005 Will should be revoked because timely notice was not provided to a caveator. Florida Probate Rule 5.260(f) states that “[a]fter the filing of a caveat by an interested person other than a creditor, the court shall not admit a will of the decedent to probate or appoint a personal representative without service of formal notice on the caveator or the caveator's designated agent.” Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court has long recognized that the filing of a caveat precludes the admission of a will to probate until the caveator is provided statutory notice. See Street v. Crosthwait, 186 So.2d 516 (Fla.1939); Barry v. Walker, 137 So.2d 711 (Fla.1931); Grooms v. Royce, 638 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); In re Estate of Hartman, 836 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Nardi v. Nardi, 390 So.2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Since we find that Mr. Wheeler was an “interested person” within the meaning of section 731.201(21), we hold that the trial court erred in not revoking the probate of the 2005 Will because timely notice was not provided to a caveator as required by Florida Probate Rule 5.260(f) and Florida case law. Thus, the orders appointing the personal representative and admitting the 2005 Will to probate must be set aside to provide notice to the caveator.

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

The statute governing removal of personal representatives ("PR") in Florida is 733.504.  Acrimony - no matter how heated - is usually NOT sufficient to warrant removal of a PR [click here for recent example].  However, the outcome may be different if you can establish a detailed factual record proving that the acrimony is such that a significant portion of the estate will be eaten up in litigation expenses if the designated PR is not removed.  Note the shift in emphasis from "I don't like him" so please remove him as PR, to "the estate assets will be wasted" so please remove him as PR.

Mark Fass of the New York Law Journal recently published an article entitled 'Vexatious' Attorney Conduct Results in Removal of Executor.  In that NY case, the PR (referred to as "executor") was removed based upon a detailed factual record proving that a PR's representation by a particular law firm was so likely to result in litigation and waste of estate assets, that the PR should be removed.  The court agreed, and removed the PR.  Here's an excerpt from the linked-to article:

The "vexatious conduct" of the attorneys in the distribution of a woman's estate has led to the disqualification of their client as executrix of the estate.

The complex familial dispute began with the intestate death of 83-year-old Roseanna DeLaune, in 1997. Pursuant to statute, her sister, Paula M. Venezia, was appointed administrator; her heirs included her disabled nephew, William Pennington III.

Venezia hired her childhood friend from Manhattan's Little Italy, attorney Alfred Sica, to serve as counsel. He in turn hired the firm now known as Vaneria & Spanos.

In 2003, Venezia, 85, died, leaving the entirety of her own million-dollar estate to the same nephew, Pennington. She nominated her goddaughter, Joanne Zaccaria, to serve as executrix. Zaccaria, who had no role in the disbursement of the first estate, hired the same counsel -- Sica and Vaneria & Spanos.

Meanwhile, over the intervening six years, the administration of DeLaune's estate had devolved into what Sica later termed "combat" between himself and Pennington.

Loath to let history repeat itself, Pennington objected to Zaccaria's appointment, based in part on her selection of the attorneys he crossed swords with following the death of his first aunt.

Brooklyn Surrogate Margarita Lopez Torres has granted the petition, disqualifying Zaccaria from overseeing Venezia's estate. The surrogate cited the "vexatious conduct" of Zaccaria's chosen attorneys during the administration of the previous estate.

"To permit Zaccaria to serve as executor, along with her chosen counsel of Vaneria & Spanos and Alfred Sica, Esq., would be detrimental to this estate," Surrogate Lopez Torres held in Estate of Venezia, 2100/2003.

"Because of the excessively hostile and bitter relationship between the nominated fiduciary, her counsel and Pennington, the appointment of Zaccaria as fiduciary ... would have the practical effect of rendering the bequests of decedent to her nephew a nullity, as this estate would surely be taken down the inevitable road to further combative litigation," she said.

Lesson learned:

The concept of "issue framing" is nothing new in politics [click here].  Same idea applies in litigation. How an issue is "framed" in estate proceedings is everything.  If a litigant frames the issue in terms of his or her personal interests, a probate court is not likely to respond favorably.  By contrast, as the linked-to article shows, if the litigant frames the issue in terms of preserving estate assets - the likelihood of success goes way up.

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

I've received a number of inquiries regarding the $1 million estate-planning/probate malpractice verdict recently upheld on appeal, which I previously wrote about [click here].  I think many practitioners are trying to figure out what went wrong in that case and what they can do to avoid making the same mistakes.

Against this backdrop, a recently published article by LawPRO, a Canadian professional liability (malpractice) insurance provider, should be of interest.  Wills & estates law claims on the rise by Deborah Petch and Dan Pinnington provides claims statistics and risk management advice specifically focused on the probate/estate planning practice area.  Although written for a Canadian audience, the advice seems equally applicable in Florida.

I was especially interested to see that "lawyer/client communication failures" was far and away the single most common cause of malpractice claims.  This finding is in line with the med-mal statistics and "don't-be-a-jerk" risk management advice given to doctors I previously wrote about [click here].  Another way of stating the don't-be-a-jerk rule is: respectfully listen to and communicate with your clients.

Here are a few excerpts from the linked-to article:

In both count and cost, wills and estates-related legal malpractice claims have slowly increased over the last several years. By area of law, wills and estates is the fifth most common area of claims: Only litigation, real estate, corporate and family claims are higher. 

Over the last five years, wills and estates-related claims averaged 6.0 per cent of LAWPRO’s claims count (112 claims per year), and 5.4 per cent of our claims costs ($3.9 million per year). On average, resolving a wills and estates claim costs LAWPRO $34,404.

This article examines the reality behind the numbers: It highlights the most common errors, and the steps you can take to reduce the likelihood of a claim.

The most common errors

In the wills and estates area, the most common causes of claims
are the following:

1. lawyer/client communication failures;
2. inadequate discovery of facts or inadequate investigation;
3. failure to know or properly apply the law;
4. time and deadline-related errors;
5. conflicts of interest; and
6. clerical/delegation.

What is striking to most lawyers is that law-related errors rank third.  Lawyer/client communication-related errors are actually the most common, representing almost 40 percent of the errors in the wills and estates area.

*     *     *     *     *

Avoiding communications errors

When it comes to avoiding or reducing the likelihood of a communications-related claim, the importance of putting things in writing cannot be over-emphasized. While the failure to have written confirmation of instructions and advice is not negligence in and of itself, such written communication can be extremely helpful in defending you in the unhappy event that a claim is made against you. Why? Because more often than not, this type of claim involves the lawyer recalling that one thing was said or done, or not said or not done, and a disappointed beneficiary that alleges something different. This type of claim is very hard for LAWPRO to defend successfully. At the end of the day it essentially comes down to a question of credibility. Unfortunately, we frequently find inadequate documentation in the lawyer’s file to back up the lawyer’s version of what occurred. All too frequently, we see files with no correspondence or reporting letters whatsoever.

Fortunately this error is one of the easiest to prevent. You can significantly reduce your claims exposure by documenting your work. Confirm the information that your client provided to you, your advice to the client, the client’s instructions to you, and what steps were taken on those instructions. Document the time spent reviewing the provisions of the will, including what issues were discussed. This can be done in your notes, and in interim or final reporting letters, or even in an e-mail message.

Even taking a few seconds to make more detailed dockets can be a lifesaver. "Conference with client re review of draft will, including provisions re cottage” is much better than just "Conference with client re draft will."

A special caution is warranted for matters involving family members and close friends: We do see claims on these matters, and quite often find almost no documentation in the file. This probably happens because the lawyer is familiar with the personal circumstances of the client, and fails to make and document all appropriate inquiries. It would be best not to act for them; but, if you feel that you must, treat them as though you had never met them before. Remember, often it is not your client who is the potential claimant, rather it is a beneficiary or disappointed beneficiary, with whom you have no personal relationship.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

I previously wrote here about a $71 million jury verdict entered against a large Texas firm for estate planning malpractice even though this same jury found that the client had suffered zero economic damages; and here about a $1.2 million jury verdict against a large Florida firm for estate planning malpractice even though the plaintiff in that case alleged only $1 million in damages.

In both of these cases it appeared to me that the attorneys were first sued then fared very poorly at trial not because of the economic harm caused, but rather because the plaintiffs felt that the trust they had placed in their attorneys' good faith had been betrayed.  In other words, non-economic factors were far more important than economic factors in determining the outcome of these cases.  A study of medical malpractice claims discussed in Malcolm Gladwell's 2005 book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, supports my theory.

In Blink Gladwell explores the power of the trained mind to make split second decisions, the ability to think without thinking, or in other words using instinct.  The author describes this phenomenon as "thin slicing": our ability to gauge what is really important from a very narrow period of experience. In other words, spontaneous decisions are often as good as—or even better than—carefully planned and considered ones.  When it comes to client interactions with professionals, be it lawyers or doctors, if the client's initial impression, hunch or instinct is that he or she isn't being seriously listened to, or that he or she is being talked down to or isn't being treated with respect, then the likelihood of a malpractice claim materializing somewhere down the line skyrockets.  Here's an excerpt from Blink discussing this phenomenon in the context of medical malpractice claims:

Believe it or not, the risk of being sued for malpractice has very little to do with how many mistakes a doctor makes. Analyses of malpractice lawsuits show that there are highly skilled doctors who get sued a lot and doctors who make lots of mistakes and never get sued. At the same time, the overwhelming number of people who suffer an injury due to the negligence of a doctor never file a malpractice suit at all. In other words, patients don’t file lawsuits because they’ve been harmed by shoddy medical care. Patients file lawsuits because they’ve been harmed by shoddy medical care and something else happens to them.

What is that something else? It’s how they were treated, on a personal level, by their doctor. What comes up again and again in malpractice cases is that patients say they were rushed or ignored or treated poorly. “People just don’t sue doctors they like,” is how Alice Burkin, a leading medical malpractice lawyer, puts it. “In all the years I’ve been in this business, I’ve never had a potential client walk in and say, ‘I really like this doctor, and I feel terrible about doing it, but I want to sue him.’ We’ve had people come in saying they want to sue some specialist, and we’ll say, ‘We don’t think that doctor was negligent. We think it’s your primary care doctor who was at fault.’ And the client will say, ‘I don’t care what she did. I love her, and I’m not suing her.’”

*     *     *     *     *

Malpractice sounds like one of those infinitely complicated and multidimensional problems. But in the end it comes down to a matter of respect, and the simplest way that respect is communicated is through tone of voice, and the most corrosive tone of voice that a doctor can assume is a dominant tone.

*     *     *     *     *

Next time you meet a doctor, and you sit down in his office and he starts to talk, if you have the sense that he isn’t listening to you, that he’s talking down to you, and that he isn’t treating you with respect, listen to that feeling. You have thin-sliced him and found him wanting.

Lesson learned: don't be a jerk

My experience has been that personal representatives or trustees or attorneys who treat estate beneficiaries dismissively or discourteously are exponentially more likely to have their fees challenged, accountings challenged, investment decisions challenged, distribution decisions challenged and generally end up in court over and over again until the beneficiaries resign themselves to the mistreatment or the professional resigns.  In other words, the best way to avoid getting sued if you are a personal representative or trustee or attorney is to be nice.  Nice trumps negligence any day of the week.  And just as importantly, being a jerk can get you sued, no matter how good you are at your job.

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

BLOG POST UPDATE: SUBSTITUTE OPINION PUBLISHED

Kravitz v. Levy, --- So.2d ----, 2008 WL 441403 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 20, 2008)

We deny appellees' motion for rehearing, withdraw our previously issued opinion, and substitute the following in its place.


A beneficiary of an estate appeals a final summary judgment in favor of the estate of the deceased personal representative of the estate, concluding that the beneficiary's cause of action against the personal representative for breach of fiduciary duty was barred by the statute of limitations. Because we conclude that there is an issue of material fact as to whether the actions of the personal representative constituted a continuing tort, we reverse.

ORIGINAL BLOG POST:

Kravitz v. Levy, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2480538 (Fla. 4th DCA Sep 05, 2007)

Probate is often criticized as being too expensive and slow moving. Why the costs and delay? In large part because the probate code is full of protections against various forms of foul play, including fraud by the person who is primarily responsible for protecting the estate: the personal representative.  But these safeguards are limited, and sometimes it can be years - maybe decades - before foul play involving an estate comes to light.  Can the family do anything after all this time?

Continuing torts doctrine saves the day.

The linked-to case involves probate proceedings for Max Kravitz, a resident of Pennsylvania, who died in July 1958. Kravitz's will was admitted to probate in Pennsylvania in 1959, and Morris Passon, Max's brother-in-law and the family lawyer, was appointed executor of Kravitz's estate.  In 2000 - 41 years later! - Passon died in Florida.  In the course of administering Passon's estate it became clear he had improperly kept assets of Kravitz's estate for himself.  So 41 years after Passon was appointed executor, the heirs of Kravitz's estate sued Passon's estate in Florida for negligence, conversion, tortious interference with an inheritance, and breach of fiduciary duty.  The trial court dismissed all claims, finding that they were time barred under F.S. 95.031(2)(a). 

In the linked-to case the 4th DCA reversed the trial court's dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claims based on the "continuing torts doctrine."  The 4th DCA's opinion is extremely useful because it provides a possible road map for attorneys/families pursuing claims that could be decades in the making, which is not unheard of in contested probate proceedings.  Here's how the 4th DCA applied the continuing tort doctrine to the breach of fiduciary duty claims in this case:

This case is most like Halkey-Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, 641 So.2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). There, a corporation brought an action against its former president claiming that he had repeatedly used corporate funds for his own personal interests. The trial court granted summary judgment on the president's statute of limitations defense, but the appellate court reversed on the claims of breach of fiduciary duty. It explained that the complaint alleged what constituted a continuing tort:

In regard to counts I and II, HRC contends that Mackal's [the former corporate president] behavior constituted continuing torts, for which the limitations period runs from the date the tortious conduct ceases. The continuing torts doctrine is recognized under our state law. See Seaboard Air Line R.R. v. Holt, 92 So.2d 169 (Fla.1956). The question of whether Mackal's actions constituted continuing torts precludes the granting of summary judgment as to counts I and II. To what extent, if any, the concept applies to this case is an issue for the trier of fact to decide.

Id. at 447. See also Carlton v. Germany Hammock Groves, 803 So.2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (whether continuing torts doctrine applies to facts of case is for trier of fact).  .  .  .  We conclude that material issues of fact remain as to whether Passon engaged in a continuing tort of breach of fiduciary duty until the date of his death. If so, the statute of limitations would not have begun to run until Passon's death. These issues are for a jury to resolve.

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

Garcia v. Morrow, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 983053 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr 04, 2007)

I've written recently about probate courts being reversed for failing to appoint the personal representative named in a decedent's will (see here and here).  This opinion picks up on the themes outlined in those cases . . . but in the intestate context.

In this case Judge Maria Korvick was reversed for refusing to appoint the statutorily preferred person as personal representative in the absence of evidence that he lacked "the necessary qualities and characteristics” to assume the position as personal representative.

Lesson learned:

The key word here is "evidence."  In other words, it is reversible error for a trial court to refuse to appoint as personal representative the person with preference under F.S. 733.301 in the absence of specific findings of fact - developed in the context of a formal evidentiary hearing - that the statutorily preferred person lacks the necessary qualities and characteristics to assume the position as personal representative.  Quoting the 5th DCA in DeVaughn v. DeVaughn, 840 So.2d 1128, 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), here's how the 3d DCA articulated the rule:

[W]e know that the probate court has the inherent authority to consider a person's character, ability, and experience to serve as personal representative. See Padgett v. Estate of Gilbert, 676 So.2d 440, 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). However, if the statutorily preferred person is not appointed, the record must show that the person is not fit to be appointed. If the record supports the conclusion that the statutorily preferred person “lacks the necessary qualities and characteristics,” the court has discretion to refuse to make the appointment. Id.

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

Hernandez v. Hernandez, 2007 WL 120051 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan 19, 2007)

It was only about a month ago that I wrote here about the reversal of a probate court's refusal to appoint the person designated in a will to serve as personal representative.  In the linked-to case we again have a probate court being reversed for failing to appoint the personal representative named by the testator in his will.  Why probate courts feel they have the discretion to brush aside perhaps one of the most important aspects of any person's will -- designating your PR -- is a mystery to me.  The following excerpt from Wikipedia's definition of executor gives a good sense of how big a job being PR can be, and thus how important this choice is:

Typically the executor is the person responsible for offering the will for probate, although it is not absolutely required that he or she do so. The executor's duties also include the disbursement of property to the beneficiaries as designated in the will, obtaining information about any other potential heirs, collecting and arranging for payment of debts of the estate and approving or disapproving creditor's claims. An executor also makes sure estate taxes are calculated, necessary forms are filed and tax payments made, and in all ways assists the attorney for the estate. Also the executor makes all donations as left in bequests to charitable and other organizations as directed in the will. In most circumstances the executor is the representative of the estate for all purposes, and has the ability to sue or be sued on behalf of the estate. The executor also holds legal title to the estate property, but may not use that property for the executor's own benefit unless expressly permitted by the terms of the will.

Given that the selection of a PR is so important, it's little wonder that Florida law provides such deference to the choice expressed in a person's will.  Here's how the linked-to opinion articulated Florida law on this point:

In Schleider, the Fourth District wrote:

The general rule of law is that trial courts do not have discretion to refuse to appoint the personal representative named by the testator in the will unless that person is disqualified by law. Clearly, the testator's selection of a personal representative should be afforded great deference. Only in exceptional circumstances does a court have the discretion to refuse to appoint a person as personal representative who was named in the decedent's will.

Schleider, 770 So.2d at 1253 (citations omitted); see also § 733.301(1)(a) 1., Fla. Stat. (2005).

In the linked-to case the probate court refused to appoint the designated PR because of animosity between the designated PR and his brother.  The 5th DCA explained as follows why family-acrimony alone isn't reason enough to ignore a person's will:

[T]he trial court did not detail the facts that would support the denial of Ruben's petition for administration, but referred only to the brothers' conflict as its basis for declining to appoint either as personal representative. This was insufficient because a dispute between the estate's beneficiaries, without more, does not constitute sufficient grounds to refuse to appoint an otherwise qualified person named as personal representative in the decedent's will. See Schleider, 770 So.2d at 1254. Where a dispute will cause unnecessary litigation and impede the estate's administration, and either the person lacks the character, ability, and experience to serve or exceptional circumstances exist, the totality of circumstances may permit the court to refuse to appoint the personal representative named in the will. Id. Here, the record does not support such a conclusion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Johnson v. Clark, 2006 WL 3780511 (M.D.Fla. Dec 20, 2006)

No surprises.  That, in a nutshell, is probably the single most important ingredient in any successful attorney-client relationship . . . especially so in the litigation context.  Which is why this case is an excellent resource for Florida probate counsel.

Hammering out a settlement agreement is usually considered probate-litigation Nirvana.  But just because the trustee or personal representative signs off on the deal doesn't mean you're home free.  If one of the beneficiaries is determined to undermine the deal then all the "what ifs" need to be anticipated and factored into the deal (remember - no surprises!). 

So what can you do to ensure the deal sticks?  First of all, you'll want to get  a court order approving the deal after a hearing where all beneficiaries were given an opportunity to object.  Counsel in this case did this.  So far so good.  But what can you do if a beneficiary starts up a whole new piece of litigation covering the same ground covered by the settlement agreement?  As we all know, you can't stop someone from suing you, all you can do is mitigate the risk and cost of such actions.

Virtual Representation

Although the virtual-representation concept summarized below provides an effective tool for disposing of litigation by disgruntled beneficiaries in the settlement-agreement context, the cost of having to litigate this issue should have been anticipated as part of  the settlement deal and shifted over to the estate in the form of an indemnification clause (remember - no surprises!).

The doctrine of virtual representation provides that “[a] person who is not a party to an action but who is represented by a party is bound by and entitled to the benefits of a judgment as though he were a party.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 41(1). Further, it is well-settled that in cases involving claims by a trustee and individual beneficiaries, a trustee, in his representative capacity, acts on behalf of the trust representing the interests of the trust and its beneficiaries; a beneficiary is therefore bound by a judgment properly obtained by a trustee acting in his representative capacity. See § 737.402(t), Florida Statutes (2006); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 41(1)(a) (“A person is represented by a party who is the trustee of an estate or interest of which the person is a beneficiary····”). In Florida, the doctrine of virtual representation has been codified [in F.S. 731.303].

Intervenor Status

But what if you happen to be the attorney representing the disgruntled beneficiary?  What kind of options can you open up for this client?  The virtual-representation concept bars your client from undoing a settlement deal entered into by his or her trustee, but what if your client had independent standing in the case?  Well, then it's a whole new ballgame.  As discussed in the following excerpts from the linked-to opinion, if your client is granted "intervenor status" in the case, presto: independent standing!

Although [Weiss v. Courshon, 618 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)] has a similar fact pattern to that presented here, the one glaring and significant difference between the beneficiaries in Weiss and Clark in the present case-the fact that Clark never formally became an intervenor in the probate proceedings-dictates the different result here. While it is true that Clark objected to the Mediation Agreement and even appealed the court's order approving the settlement, Clark was not an intervenor to the trustee's claims and neither the Mediation Agreement nor the Order approving it expressly reserved his individual claims. . . . . .

FN6. Although the [Weiss v. Courshon, 618 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)] court did not specifically cite to it, Florida law provides that “[a]nyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert a right by intervention.” Fla. R.Civ.P.1.230. “[T]he general rule [is] that it is too late to apply for intervention after final decree has been entered, though there are cases where in the interest of justice leave to intervene has been granted after final decree.” Wags Transp. Sys., Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 88 So.2d 751, 752 (Fla.1956) (internal citations omitted) (holding that potential loss of intervenors' homes satisfied the interest of justice exception). Further, the Virtual Representation Statute represents a policy decision by the Florida legislature, which weighs heavily against the possibility that facts of this case would warrant a late grant of intervenor status, even if Clark had actually requested such status. See id.

The "Standard" General Release

Say it's 11 PM on a Friday night and you've been negotiating a settlement deal for the last 18 hours, you've worked through the all the economics of the deal and someone says "how about we just agree to the 'standard' general release?"  Freeze, because that last statement is nonsense.  Do yourself and everyone else involved a favor and insist on the parties agreeing to the explicit text of the release.  If anyone blows a gasket at this latest middle-of-the-night example of your intransigence, you may want to share this last bit of guidance from the linked-to opinion:

The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that “there are no ‘standard’ general releases; all are unique. The fact that a proposed release is described as being ‘general’ is virtually meaningless. [I]t would be essential to know what is being released, who is being released, and any conditions or terms of the release.” Swartzel v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 882 So.2d 449, 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In other words, the covenant to execute “mutual general releases” as set forth in the Mediation Agreement essentially had no meaning until the actual general releases were executed . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Werner v. Estate of McCloskey, 2006 WL 3613178 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec 13, 2006)

This case underscores the importance Florida law gives to a person's choice of personal representative in his or her will.  It also proves that just because you may think there are grounds to remove a serving personal representative, it doesn't mean you have grounds for blocking the initial appointment.  Why does this matter?  Because who gets appointed personal representative ("PR") of an estate has huge implications in the litigation context.  The named PR can pay his legal fees with probate assets, while the person challenging the PR has to pay his own way.  In the real world, this fact alone can determine the outcome of a contested proceeding, regardless of the underlying legal positions of the parties.

The following excerpt from the linked-to opinion speaks to the strength of the legal presumption in favor of the named personal representative:

Section 733.301(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), provides that, in testate estates, preference in granting letters of administration must be accorded to “[t]he personal representative ··· nominated by the will····” Moreover, “[i]t is a well recognized principle of law that a testator has the right to name the person who shall administer his estate provided such person is not disqualified by law.” Pontrello v. Estate of Kepler, 528 So.2d 441, 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (citations omitted). “The general rule is that trial courts are without discretion to refuse to appoint the personal representative specified by the testator in the will unless the person is expressly disqualified under the statute or discretion is granted within the statute.” In re Estate of Miller, 568 So.2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (citations omitted).

Here, the trial court appointed Ms. Niznik rather than appellant because it concluded that appellant “ha[d] a conflict of interest with the estate” (the precise nature of which was not identified). Nothing in section 733.301(1)(a) purports to vest discretion in the trial courts to disregard the preference there specified, as long as the personal representative nominated by the decedent is statutorily qualified to serve. Sections 733.302 and 733.303(1), together, set out the qualifications required of one who wishes to serve as a personal representative. Section 733.302 requires that the person be “sui juris” and “a resident of Florida at the time of the death of the person whose estate is to be administered.”

The following excerpt reminds the parties of the fact that just because a conflict of interest may not disqualify a named PR, it's certainly a good reason to get rid of him or her once appointed:

We note that, to the extent that, on remand, there exists a legitimate concern about whether appellant has a conflict of interest, section 733.504(9), which lists causes for removal of a personal representative once appointed, includes as a ground “[h]olding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate that will or may interfere with the administration of the estate as a whole.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The March 2005 edition of the Yale Law Journal contains this interesting (perhaps even provocative) article by the noted Yale Law School Professor John H. Langbien. The logic underlying his thesis is somewhat circular in nature, although it is sure to warm the hearts of corporate fiduciaries (or more specifically, the "business development" folks at large banks). In a world dominated by an ever smaller group of financial-services conglomerates that maximize shareholder returns by cross selling an ever growing array of financial products and services to a single set of clients (the fancy word for this is "synergy"), it is no surprise that corporate fiduciaries seek to cross sell to their trust clients as well. The only problem is that they are hampered by these old fuddy duddy fiduciary self-dealing prohibitions that were developed within the context of a supposedly more genteel 18th century English business culture. The gist of Prof. Langbien's article is that if today's corporate environment conflicts with two-century's worth of Anglo-American fiduciary common law, then there must be something wrong with the law (see what I mean by the circular nature of this argument). Prof. Langbien proposes a technical fix that could be easily incorporated into state statutory regimes governing trustees and other fiduciaries (e.g., personal representatives of estates).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Jensen v. Estate of Gambidilla, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D578 (Fla. 4 DCA March 2, 2005) (TRIAL COURT REVERSED)

St. Lucie County Circuit Court Judge Marc A. Cianca entered a civil contempt order requiring an estate's former personal representative to be incarcerated until she returned certain items of personal property to the estate. The Fourth DCA reversed the trial court's order holding that Probate Rule 5.440(d) contempt proceedings require that a trial court expressly find that the removed personal representative had the present ability to comply its order.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Angelus v. Pass, 868 So.2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 11, 2004)

Fifteen months after the court signed letters of administration appointing Henry Pass, a non-resident attorney, as co-personal representative of the decedent's estate, the decedent's daughter, Adriaan Angelus, filed a petition seeking to remove him as personal representative. Pass had initially filed a petition for administration that admitted he was a non-resident of Florida, but also claimed that he was the decedent's nephew. At the hearing on the petition to remove him, Pass admitted that he was the blood nephew of the decedent's former husband, not of the decedent. Consequently, Pass did not fall within the exception for blood relatives carved out in Section 733.304 to the general residency requirement imposed on Florida personal representatives. Notwithstanding this admission, the probate court dismissed the removal petition ruling that it was time barred by the three-month statute of limitations period established by Section 733.212.

The 3d DCA reversed the probate court's ruling on two grounds. First, the court noted that Florida Probate Rule 5.310 places the burden on the personal representative, as a fiduciary, to provide all interested parties with notice in the event the personal representative is not legally qualified to serve. In this case, the personal representative did not provide the requisite notice. Consequently, the 3d DCA held that applying the three-month statute of limitations period contained in Section 733.212 to bar the removal petition would render Rule 5.310 "meaningless" and "improperly shift the burden of discovery of an applicant's misrepresentations to the court and interested parties." Additionally, the court noted that Section 733.212 fell under Part II of Chapter 733 ("Commencing Administration"), and that Section 733.304 fell under Part III of Chapter 733 ("Preference in Appointment and Qualifications of Personal Representatives"). Finding that there was no "time limit" specified with respect to the qualification provisions found in Sections 733.304 and 733.3101 of Part III of Chapter 733, the court held that there was "no basis to engraft the three-month limitation of the commencing administration statute onto the explicit provisions of the qualifications statute . . . particularly where the applicant was never otherwise legally qualified to serve."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link