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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    .   .   .   .   .

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

SOAPBOX SOUND OFF:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *     *     *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson learned?

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

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

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

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

Stay tooned for more . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

I previously wrote about this case here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

(10) Payment of costs or attorney's fees incurred in any trust proceeding from the assets of the trust may be made by the trustee without the approval of any person and without court authorization, except that court authorization shall be required if an action has been filed or defense asserted against the trustee based upon a breach of trust. Court authorization is not required if the action or defense is later withdrawn or dismissed by the party that is alleging a breach of trust or resolved without a determination by the court that the trustee has committed a breach of trust.

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

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

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

Lesson learned:

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

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

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

(e) Payment of costs or attorney's fees incurred in any trust proceeding from the assets of the trust unless an action has been filed or defense asserted against the trustee based upon a breach of trust. Court authorization is not required if the action or defense is later withdrawn or dismissed by the party that is alleging a breach of trust or resolved without a determination by the court that the trustee has committed a breach of trust.

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (4)

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

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

Florida Law: Ethics Opinion 88-11

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

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

*     *     *     *     *

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesson learned:

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

Source: Death and Taxes - The Blog

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)

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

Here are excerpts from the linked-to story:

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

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

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

*     *     *     *     *

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

[D.] All of the above.

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

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

The Second DCA explained its ruling as follows:

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)

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

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

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

Lesson Learned:

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

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

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

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

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

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

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

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)