Listen to this post

We all know charities are struggling to stay afloat these days, which means they’re asserting themselves in court to a degree unheard of a generation ago (a topic of frequent discussion on this blog). In the linked-to case above several charities, including the SPCA Wildlife Care Center (a Broward County animal shelter affiliated with the Humane Society), found themselves unexpectedly pushed into a corner by a probate court’s insistence on adjudicating an issue no one asked it to rule on (lesson learned: always expect the unexpected when setting foot in a courtroom).

The question before the 4th DCA in the linked-to case above was whether a person’s vaguely worded testamentary gift to charity can be enforced even if the named charity doesn’t exist or the testatrix’s charitable intent isn’t worded as specifically as usually required for testamentary bequests. The trial court said NO. On appeal, the 4th DCA said YES, siding with the charity and reversing the trial court’s decision based on the “cy-près” doctrine.

“Cy-près” Doctrine:

“Cy-près” is an old Norman French term meaning “as near as possible” or “as near as may be.” When the original objective of the settlor or the testator becomes impossible, impracticable, or illegal to perform, the cy-près doctrine allows a court to amend the terms of a charitable trust as closely as possible to the original intention of the testator or settlor to prevent the trust from failing. For example, in Jackson v. Phillips, (1867) 96 Mass. 539, the testator bequeathed to trustees money to be used to “create a public sentiment that will put an end to negro slavery in this country.” After slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the funds were applied cy-près to the “use of necessitous persons of African descent in the city of Boston and its vicinity.”

Although unstated in the link-to 4th DCA opinion, the “cy-près” doctrine has been codified in Florida as part of our Trust Code at F.S. 736.0413. This provision is loosely based on section 413 of the Uniform Trust Code.

SPCA Wildlife Care Center v. Abraham, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 6183491 (Fla 4th DCA Dec 14, 2011):

In the linked-to case above the decedent, Mary Ericson, executed a will that created a trust for the life-time benefit of her close friend, Emma Brown. Upon Ms. Brown’s death, the trust’s remaining assets were to be distributed to the “International Wildlife Society.” This is all fine, except there’s no such thing as the “International Wildlife Society.” So does the charitable bequest fail?

According to Ms. Brown, “it was the intent of the decedent, Mary Ericson, to have the trust assets distributed to a local Broward County, Florida benevolent animal organization which would attempt to aid and care for animals and not consider destruction of animals except as a last resort.” Ms. Brown further attested that the decedent “often spoke of the Humane Society [of] Broward County.”

When the trust was brought before the court for clarification, several charities were notified and given an opportunity to file responses. One of these charities, the SPCA Wildlife Care Center, filed a response asserting that the assets of the testamentary trust should be distributed to it based on the cy-près doctrine. For some unexplained reason the trial court took it upon itself to simply rule the trust’s residuary bequest was vague, and thus “failed”. In other words, NO charity gets anything. What?! That logic may apply to non-charitable bequests, but not to charities. That’s what the cy pres doctrine is all about; fixing vague charitable bequests. Fortunately, the 4th DCA “got it,” reversing the trial court’s order based on the following analysis.

The cy pres doctrine is the principle that equity will [a] make specific a general charitable intent of a settlor, and will, [b] when an original specific intent becomes impossible or impracticable to fulfill, substitute another plan of administration which is believed to approach the original scheme as closely as possible. Christian Herald Ass’n v. First Nat’l Bank of Tampa, 40 So.2d 563, 568 (Fla .1949). The doctrine is often applied where the named beneficiary is a corporation or institution that has ceased to exist at the time of the testator’s death. See, e.g., Lewis v. Gaillard, 61 Fla. 819, 842–43, 56 So. 281, 288 (1911) (applying the cy pres doctrine and holding that the Florida State College for Women was entitled to receive income from the testator’s estate, even though the testator’s will named the college’s predecessor institution, West Florida Seminary, as the beneficiary); Christian Herald, 40 So.2d at 568 (holding where testator devised property to dissolved charitable corporation, the successor in interest of the dissolved corporation became entitled to such property under the cy pres doctrine). Florida courts have held that “the misnomer of a devisee will not cause the devise to fail where the identity of the devisee can be identified with certainty.” Humana, Inc. v. Estate of Scheying, 483 So.2d 113, 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The cy pres doctrine, however, does not apply when the provisions of the will can be carried out, such as where the will provides an alternative that can be performed. See Jewish Guild for the Blind v. First Nat’l Bank in St. Petersburg, 226 So.2d 414, 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); see also Sheldon v. Powell, 99 Fla. 782, 794, 128 So. 258, 263 (1930).

In the present case, the trial court erred in sua sponte determining that the residue of the testamentary trust would pass by intestacy instead of to a charitable organization for the benefit of animals. The hearing was not scheduled as an evidentiary hearing, and the only extrinsic evidence in the record on the issue of the decedent’s testamentary intent consists of the affidavits of the income beneficiary and the attorney who prepared the will. Those would suggest that the court could fashion an alternative plan to effectuate the intent of the testator, where the testator’s intent to provide for a charitable bequest to animals, and not to benefit any relatives or other parties, was express. Thus, there was not any evidentiary support for the trial court’s conclusion that the residuary clause in Article Six, Paragraph C, of the will should fail.

From the language of the will and the affidavits in the record, it appears that the decedent had a general charitable intent for the residue of her testamentary trust to pass to a charitable organization for the benefit of animals. Even if it cannot be determined which organization the testator had in mind, the interested parties should have the opportunity to present evidence to demonstrate that the cy pres doctrine should apply and permit distribution to a claimant or claimants which can fulfill the original intent of the bequest as closely as possible. Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

 

Darian v. Weymouth, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 5554786 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov 16, 2011)

James Hughes and Martha Mayfield were married in 1999. They both had children from prior marriages. Prior to getting married, they entered into a prenuptial agreement. The terms of that prenuptial agreement may or may not have addressed testamentary gifts. The 4th DCA doesn’t tell us. Anyway, Mr. Hughes subsequently executed a revocable trust that richly provided for Mrs. Hughes. According to the 4th DCA:

Upon his death, Martha would receive the family home in Florida, the country home in North Carolina, a sum of one million dollars, the contents of the residences, and various other items of personal property.

The couple was tragically murdered on September 3, 2004 by Thomas Kleingartner, Mrs. Hughes’s adopted son from a prior marriage. Both died as a result of gunshot wounds to the head. Click here, here and here for more on this terrible crime and the ensuing criminal trial.

Because the coroner was unable to determine which spouse predeceased the other, pursuant to F.S. 732.601(1) the probate court deemed their deaths to be simultaneous and entered an order to that effect in the probate of Mr. Hughes’ estate. Accordingly, Mr. Hughes’ property was to be disposed of as if he survived Mrs. Hughes.

The order of death wouldn’t have mattered in this case if F.S. 736.1106(2) had applied (the antilapse statute applicable to Florida trusts). Under that statute, Mrs. Hughes’ heirs would have inherited her share of Mr. Hughes’ estate, regardless of who survived who. However, this particular trust fell between the cracks of Florida’s current and prior antilapse statute, thus the much harsher common law rule applied.

First, we note that the common law controls this case. Section 736.1106(2), Florida Statutes, Florida’s antilapse statute, applies only to trusts which became irrevocable on or after July 1, 2009. Section 737.6035(2)(c), Florida Statutes, Florida’s previous antilapse statute, applied only to trusts executed on or after June 12, 2003. The James E. Hughes Living Trust was executed in August of 2000 and became irrevocable in September of 2004. Thus, neither statute controls.

At common law, lapse occurs when the beneficiary or the devisee under the trust predeceases the grantor, invalidating the gift. The gift would instead revert to the residuary estate or be granted under the law of intestate succession. Bottom line, Mrs. Hughes’ heirs get nothing under the common law rule.

Mrs. Hughes heirs tried to salvage their claim to Mr. Hughes’ estate by claiming that her share of Mr. Hughes’ revocable trust had somehow vested at the time Mr. Hughes executed the document. There was a lot of money at stake here, so you can see why Mrs. Hughes’ heirs would take a shot at making this argument . . . and at the trial court level it actually worked!? Not surprisingly, the 4th DCA saw things differently and reversed, again leaving Mrs. Hughes’ heirs with nothing.

In Florida, the creation of a living trust, standing alone, is not an event which vests the interests provided by a trust agreement. Travis et. Al. v. Ashton et al., 156 Fla. 529, 23 So.2d 725, 727 (Fla.1945) (holding that beneficiary of trust deed who predeceased grantors did not receive a vested interest at time of trust creation. Where element of futurity was annexed to substance of gift rather than enjoyment of it, vesting was suspended and the gift was “contingent .”); Brundage v. Bank of Am., 996 So.2d 877, 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (stating that the settlor of a revocable trust, of which he is the sole beneficiary until death, may change or revoke the trust at any time); Fla. Nat’l. Bank of Palm Beach Cty. v. Genova, 460 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla.1984) (stating that beneficiaries of revocable living trust do not come into possession of trust property until the death of the settlor, and even then their interest is contingent upon the settlor not exercising the power to revoke). A beneficiary’s interest in a trust vests upon the death of the settlor. Sorrels v. McNally, 89 Fla. 457, 105 So. 106, 107 (Fla.1925).

In this case, no sufficient event existed to vest Mrs. Hughes’ interest in the Trust prior to her husband’s death. In Travis, the Florida Supreme Court held that an intended beneficiary’s interest is suspended during the life of the grantor. 23 So.2d at 726. The intended beneficiary’s interest lapses should the beneficiary predecease the grantor. Id. Mr. Hughes was the sole trustee and beneficiary under the Trust during his life. Mrs. Hughes was among the contingent residual beneficiaries whose interest came into creation only upon the death of Mr. Hughes and who were entitled to distribution of the then remaining corpus of the trust. Because it was judicially determined that Mrs. Hughes predeceased her husband, her interest in the Trust lapsed upon her death.

Lesson learned?

When a couple dies in a car accident or due to some other tragic event, it can be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine who died first, since they both died within moments of each other. It usually doesn’t matter. In this case, it mattered big time for Mrs. Hughes’ heirs. If they knew then what they know now, Mrs. Hughes’ heirs might have pushed the coroner a little harder to make a call on who died first, or maybe hired their own independent expert to make the determination. Coroner and medical examiner offices have been especially hard hit by budget cuts; you don’t have to accept their conclusions as gospel [click here]. In hindsight, the 2004 coroner’s report in this case, which was probably viewed as a non-event at the time, was outcome determinative. No one said practicing law was easy.

In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, No. SC11-192 (Fla. Nov. 3, 2011)

A subcommittee of the Probate and Trust Litigation Committee has been looking at ways to add greater certainty to the question of when a probate/guardianship order is or is not appealable since 2007. That effort has finally borne fruit in the form of the Florida Supreme Court’s new Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.170, which goes into effect on January 1, 2012 (see linked-to opinion above).

To understand why this new rule was adopted and the problem it is supposed to address, you’ll want to read an extremely thorough 38-page white paper [click here] produced by the Bar committee working on this project. Here’s an excerpt:

By way of background, prior to the 1996 amendment to the Florida Rules of Appellate procedure, Rule 5.100 of the Florida Probate Rules governed when an order in a probate or guardianship case was appealable. Rule 5.100 provided in part that “all orders and judgments of the Court determining rights of any party in any particular proceeding in the administration of the estate of a decedent or ward shall be deemed final, and may, as a matter of right, be appealed to the appropriate district court of appeal.” The problem was, and really still is, that it is not clear exactly what qualifies as a final order and the case law does little to refine or define what finality is.

. . . . .

Thus, the 3d DCA noted in its decision in Delgado v. The Estate of Garriaga, 870 So.2d 912, 914 n.5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004),

Perhaps there should be further study of this problem with a view toward developing a rule further defining what constitutes a final order in a probate appeal. It appears wasteful to allow piecemeal appeals, one before and the other after the adversary action.

. . . . .

One approach to resolving this problem is to supplement the existing appellate rule with a non-exclusive list of types of probate and guardianship orders that would be included as orders that “determine a right or obligation of an interested person.” These “types” of orders would be identified by what they do rather than what they are called.

In new Appellate Rule 9.170 the Florida Supreme Court adopted the idea of including a non-exclusive list of types of probate and guardianship orders that would be deemed per se  appealable orders “determining a right or obligation of an interested person.” The list is 24 items long. Here’s the relevant portion of the new rule, as set forth in the linked-to opinion above:

Orders that finally determine a right or obligation include, but are not limited to, orders that:

  1. determine a petition or motion to revoke letters of administration or letters of guardianship;
  2. determine a petition or motion to revoke probate of a will;
  3. determine a petition for probate of a lost or destroyed will;
  4. grant or deny a petition for administration pursuant to section 733.2123, Florida Statutes;
  5. grant heirship, succession, entitlement, or determine the persons to whom distribution should be made;
  6. remove or refuse to remove a fiduciary;
  7. refuse to appoint a personal representative or guardian;
  8. determine a petition or motion to determine incapacity or to remove rights of an alleged incapacitated person or ward;
  9. determine a motion or petition to restore capacity or rights of a ward;
  10. determine a petition to approve the settlement of minors’ claims;
  11. determine apportionment or contribution of estate taxes;
  12. determine an estate’s interest in any property;
  13. determine exempt property, family allowance, or the homestead status of real property;
  14. authorize or confirm a sale of real or personal property by a personal representative;
  15. make distributions to any beneficiary;
  16. determine amount and order contribution in satisfaction of elective share;
  17. determine a motion or petition for enlargement of time to file a claim against an estate;
  18. determine a motion or petition to strike an objection to a claim against an estate;
  19. determine a motion or petition to extend the time to file an objection to a claim against an estate;
  20. determine a motion or petition to enlarge the time to file an independent action on a claim filed against an estate;
  21. settle an account of a personal representative, guardian, or other fiduciary;
  22. discharge a fiduciary or the fiduciary’s surety;
  23. award attorneys’ fees or costs; or
  24. approve a settlement agreement on any of the matters listed above in (1)–(23) or authorizing a compromise pursuant to section 733.708, Florida Statutes.

Steve Akers of Bessemer Trust is one of the best speakers you’ll ever have the pleasure of running into as a trusts and estates lawyer. As a former private practice T&E lawyer himself, he knows what’s important for those of us in the trenches. Which is why I was especially interested in his recent write up of Rev. Proc. 2011-48 (the new IRS guidance for preserving § 2053 estate tax deductions that are uncertain and have yet to be paid) poetically entitled Protective Claim for Refund Procedures for Section 2053 Claims.

If an estate is both subject to the estate tax and litigation, a key issue everyone needs to stay focused on from day one is ensuring all applicable tax deductions under IRC § 2053 are preserved. For example, IRC § 2053 tax deductions include attorney’s fees and costs (usually a big sticking point in T&E litigation). Maximizing IRC § 2053 tax deductions creates win-win opportunities by mining the tax code for new funds with which to settle disputes.

In 2009 I wrote here about the new IRS reg’s governing estate tax deductions under IRC § 2053. Generally speaking, under these reg’s a § 2053 deduction cannot be taken unless it’s actually been paid; potential or un-matured claims aren’t deductible. But what if a legitimately deductible § 2053 expense/claim won’t mature, and thus isn’t payable, until after the deadline for filing refund claims under IRC § 6511(a) (i.e., the later of three years after the estate tax return was filed or two years after the payment of tax)? In those cases a “protective” claim for refund needs to be filed to preserve the estate’s right to claim a tax refund. When the original § 2053 reg’s were issued the IRS said it would issue guidance on how to file protective refund claims. Two years later, we’ve received that guidance in the form of Rev. Proc. 2011-48.
 
T&E litigators need to be familiar with Rev. Proc. 2011-48. Especially when you’re dealing with large estates, contested proceedings can drag on for years, easily flying by the § 6511(a) limitations period. To get you started, the following is an excerpt from Steve Akers’ Protective Claim for Refund Procedures for Section 2053 Claims:
 
Revenue Procedure 2011-48, released on October 14, 2011, is critically important for estates with uncertain claims or expenses that cannot be deducted at the time the estate tax return is filed. Unless the procedures in this Revenue Procedure are followed, there will be no ability to deduct claims or expenses that are actually paid or resolved after the period of limitations on federal estate tax refunds has expired. Satisfying all of the detailed requirements in the Revenue Procedure is important for various reasons, including the ability to correct insufficient identification of claims and to limit the IRS from being able to review the entire estate tax return after the period of limitations on refunds has expired.

. . . . .

Summary of Procedures Under Rev. Proc. 2011-48

1. Time Period For Filing Protective Claim. The protective claim for refund may be filed at any time within the period of limitations for filing a claim for refund under §6511(a) (i.e., the later of three years after the return was filed or two years after the payment of tax). Rev. Proc. 2011-48, § 4.01.

. . . . .

5. Identification of the Claim or Expense; Ancillary Expenses. Each claim or expense for which a protective claim for refund is made must be clearly identified with “an explanation of the reasons and contingencies delaying the actual payment to be made in satisfaction of the claim or expense.” Rev. Proc. 2011-48, § 4.05(1). For contested matters, the protective claim must identify the contested matter and potential liability by including the name of the claimant, the basis of the claim, “the extent or amount of the liability claimed,” and a brief statement of the status of the contested matter. (A copy of relevant court pleadings generally will be sufficient to identify the claim.) Rev. Proc. 2011-48, § 4.04(3).

There is no necessity that the protective claim “state a particular dollar amount.” The 2009 § 2053 regulation confirms that even though the “specific dollar amount” issue is not addressed in the Revenue Procedure. Treas. Reg. § 20.2053-1(d)(5). This is a very important consideration in crafting the protective claim because a request for a specific high dollar amount of deduction would likely be a “smoking gun” in the underlying litigation about the contingent claim.

Ancillary expenses (such as attorneys’ fees, court costs, appraisal fees, and accounting fees) “related to resolving, defending, or satisfying the identified claim or expense” are automatically included as part of the claim for refund without the need for separate identification of these ancillary expenses. Rev. Proc. 2011-48, § 4.04(2).

CCA 200848045, provides a general overview of protective claims. While Rev. Proc. 2011-48 does not specifically refer to this Chief Council Advice, it may nevertheless assist in understanding the type of information that the IRS is seeking in identifying claims. CCA 200848045 says that Reg. § 301.6402-2 does not require that a particular dollar amount be asserted but the claim must “identify and describe the contingencies affecting the claim.” This requirement “is interpreted liberally by the Service. So long as the claim is sufficiently clear and definite [to] apprise us of the essential nature of the claim, it will be accepted as having met the requirement.” (This is important because providing too much detail about what makes the claim contingent may give the other side in the litigation insight into the taxpayer’s perceived weaknesses in its case.)

. . . . .

10. Limited Scope of Review. Rev. Proc. 2011-48 confirms that “generally the Service will limit its review of the Form 706 to the deduction under section 2053 that was the subject of the protective claim.” Rev. Proc. 2011-48, § 5.01, referencing Notice 2009-84. However, very importantly, the limited review described in Notice 2009-84 and in § 5.01 does not apply to “[a] taxpayer that chooses not to follow or fails to comply with the procedures set forth in this revenue procedure.” Rev. Proc. 2011-48, § 3.

The explicit reference to Notice 2009-84 is important, because that Notice provides insight into why the IRS inserted the word “generally” in the sentence about limiting the scope of review. The Supreme Court has held that the IRS can examine each item on a return to offset the amount a refund claim, even after the period of limitations on assessment has run. Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281, 283 (1932). However, the IRS in Notice 2009-84 agreed that it would limit the review of protective claims for refund to preserve the ability to claim a deduction under §2053 “to the evidence relating to the deduction under section 2053,” and not exercise its authority to examine each item on the return to offset a refund claim. This limitation does not apply if the IRS is considering a claim for refund not based on a protective claim regarding a deduction under §2053 in the same estate. Also, the Notice says the limitation applies “only if the protective claim for refund ripens after the expiration of the period of limitations on assessment and does not apply if there is evidence of fraud, malfeasance, collusion, concealment, or misrepresentation of a material fact.” The Revenue Procedure is not as explicit but makes a passing reference to this requirement about the refund ripening after the period of limitations has run. It says the limited scope of review applies when determining “whether there is an overpayment of tax based on a timely-filed section 2053 protective claim for refund that becomes ready for consideration after the expiration of the period of limitation on assessment …” (Accordingly, there may be an advantage in not having resolved the underlying lawsuit regarding the claim against the estate until after the period on additional assessments has run — to the extent that there may be items on other parts of the estate tax return that the IRS might question if it could.)

Listen to this post

Celebrities are great for the trusts and estates field. They focus popular attention by bringing to life in dramatic fashion the abstract principles T&E lawyers deal with every day. The latest celebrity to step up to the plate for the T&E world is George Clooney in The Descendants.

T&E lawyers can go on ad nauseam about the legal and financial challenges faced by trustees balancing the interests of current and future trust beneficiaries, and we can kill whole forests writing about the legal and financial tools available to trustees (I’ve done my part, click here, and here), but how do you explain the sometime metaphysical challenges faced by trustees who don’t just want to get the job done, they want to “do the right thing.” For that, we need good drama. Enter George Clooney in The Descendants.

Scott Martin of The Trust Advisor Blog provides an excellent write up of Clooney’s latest role from a T&E perspective. Here’s an excerpt:

Every multi-generational trust is a balancing act between the living and the dead, with the trustee in the precarious position of having to weigh the wishes of vanished grantors against the priorities of their heirs.

The new film “The Descendants,” by the director of “About Schmidt” and “Sideways,” frames that balancing act against the lush landscape of Kauai, where the fictional King family have lived for decades on acreage held in trust.

The land is not only their home but their birthright, so when the heirs decide to sell the property to generate income, the trustee (played brilliantly by George Clooney) has to do plenty of soul searching.

As a beneficiary and heir of the grantors himself, his position is almost impossibly complicated. He is torn between succumbing to the pressure of the cash strapped beneficiaries and the original intent of the family to preserve the land for generations to come.

He gets a lot of things wrong along the way — nobody said playing referee for a fractious family is easy, especially when there are billions of dollars at stake and the heirs are your cousins.

But at the end, he does the best he can, and Payne (who co-wrote the screenplay from a book by Kaui Hart Hemmings) even gives him a little peace after the hard decisions have played out.

Ripped from the headlines

In fact, the situation he has to face reflects the real-life decisions the trustees made a few years ago on behalf of the beneficiaries of Hawaii’s billion-dollar Campbell Estate.

The 107-year-old Campbell Estate was required to dissolve in January of 2007, twenty years after the last death of the direct descendants who had been alive at the time of the trust’s creation.

Some of the heirs took large cash payouts, according to an account in the Honolulu Advertiser — now the Honolulu Star Advertiser — while others chose instead to roll their interests into a new national real estate entity, the San Francisco-based James Campbell Co. LLC.

In its new corporate identity, the former estate had to distribute its estate tax liabilities as well as its assets to the beneficiaries.

But where the acreage in “The Descendants” ends up sold off to outside developers, the Campbell family still controls several thousand acres of their family legacy in Hawaii, as well as an empire of projects on the mainland

Other details are drawn from the story of other family trusts in Hawaii that have faced this same situation in the last few years.

For example, when the film refers to how “Matt King,” played by Clooney, is a descendant of a Hawaiian princess, who was a member of the powerful Kamehameha dynasty, and a mainland banker, the lineage is fictional.

But the story is reminiscent of the foundation of what was formerly known as the Bishop Estate, created by Charles Reed Bishop, a banker who married the Hawaiian princess Bernice Pauahi.

Listen to this post

Grisolia v. Pfeffer, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 5864806 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov 23, 2011)

The key to understanding this case is recognizing that one word: “homestead;” is used in three very different ways in Florida’s constitution:

[1] Exemption from forced sale: Article X, §4(a) and (b)

[2] Descent and devise: Article X, §4(c)

[3] Taxation: Article VII, §6

The same home can qualify as “homestead” under one constitutional homestead clause, while at the same time failing to qualify as “homestead” under another constitutional homestead clause. For example, for public policy reasons Florida’s homestead tax exemption (Article VII, §6) is “strictly construed.” In other words, when in doubt, courts must rule against homeowners claiming this tax benefit. By contrast, Florida’s homestead creditor protection (Article X, §4(a) and (b)) is “liberally construed.” When in doubt, courts must rule in favor of homeowners claiming this asset-protection benefit.

Courts get into trouble when they rely on a line of homestead case-law authority developed to address one facet of homestead law (e.g., taxes), to decide a case involving another facet of homestead law (e.g., creditor protection). That’s what happened in the linked-to case above.

Case Study:

In the linked-to case above the decedent was a foreign national (Venezuelan) who moved to Florida in 2005 after his US-born son was almost kidnapped in Venezuela. In 2006 the decedent purchased an apartment in Florida, which he resided in with his family. In 2007 the decedent was loaned $500,000. In 2009 the decedent died intestate while still residing with his family in his Florida apartment. When the decedent’s creditors tried to enforce their debt against his estate, his wife claimed the homestead creditor protection to shield the family’s apartment from their claims.

A foreign national does not qualify for the homestead tax exemption unless he’s a permanent US resident (i.e., Greencard holder), which the decedent wasn’t. The trial court ruled against the family on the homestead creditor protection issue based in large part on the fact that the decedent never claimed, nor did he ever qualify for, the homestead tax exemption. Wrong answer, says the 3d DCA. Just because your “homestead” does not qualify for the tax exemption does not mean it fails to qualify for creditor protection.

In Florida, “courts have consistently held that the protections afforded by the ‘homestead exemption in article X, section 4 must be liberally construed.’“ Taylor v. Maness, 941 So.2d 559, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citation omitted). Furthermore, the homestead exemption jurisprudence of Florida courts “has long been guided by a policy favoring the liberal construction of the exemption: ‘Organic and statutory provisions relating to homestead exemptions should be liberally construed in the interest of the family home.’“ Taylor, 941 So.2d at 562 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Florida homestead exemption from forced sale “is liberally construed for the benefit of those it was designed to protect.” Taylor, 941 So.2d at 562 (quoting Law v. Law, 738 So.2d 522, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)).

. . . . . .

Appellees cite to several bankruptcy cases where a debtor, because of his immigration status, could not formulate the requisite intent to make his property his permanent residence. These cases ignore that eligibility for the homestead exemption depends on the intent of the homesteader rather than that of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. See Cooke, 412 So.2d at 341.

. . . . . .

Other cases cited by Appellees are inapposite as they involve Florida’s homestead exemption from taxation that is now set forth in article VII, section 6 of the Florida Constitution (“Tax Exemption”), rather than the homestead exemption from forced sale found in article X, section 4. For example, in Juarrero v. McNayr, 157 So.2d 79 (1963), the Florida Supreme Court held that a citizen and former resident of a foreign country, who is in the United States solely on the authority of a temporary visa, “has no assurance that he can continue to reside in good faith for any fixed period of time in this country … [and, therefore] does not have the legal ability to determine for himself his future status and does not have the ability legally to convert a temporary residence into a permanent home.” Id. at 81. Likewise, in DeQuervain v. Desguin, 927 So.2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), the court found that homeowners who held only temporary visas “could not form the requisite intent to become permanent residents for purposes of the [Tax Exemption].” Id. at 233. However, the Second District also clarified that “because the [Tax Exemption] provides relief from an ad valorem tax, we must construe the statute strictly against [the homeowners].” Id. (citing Capital City Country Club, Inc. v. Tucker, 613 So.2d 448, 452 (1993)). The strict construction applicable to the Tax Exemption stands in contrast to the liberal construction of the homestead exemption from forced sale at issue here. See Taylor, 941 So.2d at 562; Law, 738 So.2d at 524.

Similarly, at the evidentiary hearing the Appellees raised the fact that the Decedent had never claimed a Tax Exemption on the Property. They further argue on appeal that a person in the United States under a temporary visa cannot meet the requirement of permanent residence or home, and therefore, cannot claim the Tax Exemption. Fla. Admin Code R. 12D–7.007 (2002). We note that the portion of the Florida Administrative Code to which they cite applies to the Tax Exemption and not to the homestead exemption from forced sale at issue here. The probate court referenced in the order on appeal that “[i]n fact, the Decedent never claimed a [Tax Exemption] according to the Miami–Dade County Tax Rolls.” As we have previously stated, “[f]ailure to claim the [Tax Exemption] is not evidence that property is not, in fact, homestead.” Taylor, 941 So.2d at 563 (citing Pierrepoint v. Humphreys, 413 So.2d 140, 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)). Clearly, “the homestead exemption from forced sale is different from the [Tax Exemption].” Taylor, 941 So.2d at 563 (citing S. Walls, Inc. v. Stilwell Corp., 810 So.2d 566, 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)).

Under the specific facts of the this case, because the Decedent’s American-born Son resided in the Property since its purchase, the Decedent and Widow had a visa which gave them the legal right to reside in Florida, and were actively pursuing permanent residence status prior to the Decedent’s death, we find that the Decedent demonstrated the requisite intent to make the Property his family’s permanent residence. Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the probate court’s order denying the petition for declaration of homestead exemption.

Lesson learned?

Not being a permanent US resident (i.e., Greencard holder) does NOT mean you don’t qualify for Florida’s homestead creditor protection (Article X, §4(a) and (b)). Understanding this point is a big deal in a state like Florida, which according to the National Association of Realtors accounted for a quarter of all U.S. residential real estate sales to foreigners during the 12 months ended June 2012 (the most recent data available), the highest level nationwide. See Foreign Buyers Drive Florida’s Housing Recovery.

 

At the heart of this case is Florida Bar ethics Rule 4-1.8(c), which prohibits Florida lawyers from soliciting “substantial” gifts from their clients (“lunch on me” is OK) or drafting wills, trusts, deeds, etc. for their clients effectuating any such gift.

The common law rule in Florida is that gifts made to lawyers in violation of Rule 4-1.8(c) aren’t per se void, but they do trigger a rebuttable presumption of undue influence by the lawyer. If the lawyer can’t overcome this evidentiary hurdle, the gift is void. How do I know this? Because a couple of years ago I read what I consider to be one of the most thoughtful and scholarly probate-court orders I’ve ever come across in my career. The order, authored by Pinellas Circuit Judge Lauren Laughlin and later affirmed on a “PCA” basis by the 2d DCA in Carey v. Rocke, 18 So.3d 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA October 23, 2009), does a fantastic job of dissecting the intersection of Florida law and professional ethics in a will contest involving a possible Rule 4-1.8(c) violation. Judge Laughlin’s order should be required reading for anyone involved in a case where a will contest involves a possible Rule 4-1.8(c) violation. Click here for a copy of Judge Laughlin’s order and click here for my write up of the case.

Agee v. Brown, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 5554833 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov 16, 2011):

At issue in the linked-to case above was a will and deed drafted by a lawyer in violation of Rule 4-1.8(c). The trial court ruled the will, and by implication the deed, were per se void as contrary to public policy. Not surprisingly, the 4th DCA reversed. Here’s the crux of their analysis:

Jon and Susan Agee appeal the trial court’s order dismissing their petition to revoke probate of the last will of Herbert G. Birck based on a lack of standing. The trial court had found that the prior will upon which the Agees based their standing was void as contrary to public policy because Mr. Agee, in violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, had drafted that earlier will in which he and his wife were left a substantial bequest. The Florida Probate Code, however, does not provide for such an automatic exclusion. Because we conclude that the Agees have standing under a prior will to petition for the revocation of the decedent’s last will, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

. . .

In support of his position that a bequest to a drafting attorney must be deemed void as contrary to public policy, Brown argues that “[p]ublic policy demands protection of the public and the instilling of confidence in the legal profession.” The best way to protect the public from unethical attorneys in the drafting of wills, however, is entirely within the province of the Florida Legislature. The current statutory framework, contrary to Brown’s implication, does contain some protections. See, e.g., § 732.5165, Fla. Stat. (2009) (“A will is void if the execution is procured by fraud, duress, mistake, or undue influence.”); § 733.107(2), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“The presumption of undue influence implements public policy against abuse of fiduciary or confidential relationships and is therefore a presumption shifting the burden of proof….”).

. . .

To the extent that the trial court agreed . . . that the deed drafted by Mr. Agee which transferred the remainder interest in an enhanced life estate to him and his wife was void as against public policy, we note that, just as with devises, the fact that Mr. Agee drafted the deed does not make the deed void per se, but rather raises a rebuttable presumption of undue influence. See Fogel v. Swann, 523 So.2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Lesson learned?

What this case and the 2d DCA’s Carey case demonstrate is that there’s a right way and a wrong way for clients to make substantial gifts to their lawyers. The wrong way opens the door for litigation and possibly frustrating a client’s legitimate testamentary wishes. The right way makes sure the client isn’t the victim of undue influence, and just as importantly, makes it much less likely the estate will find itself embroiled in costly litigation. So what’s the right way? The Commentary to Rule 4-1.8(c) provides the following road map:

A lawyer may accept a gift from a client, if the transaction meets general standards of fairness and if the lawyer does not prepare the instrument bestowing the gift. For example, a simple gift such as a present given at a holiday or as a token of appreciation is permitted. If a client offers the lawyer a more substantial gift, subdivision (c) does not prohibit the lawyer from accepting it, although such a gift may be voidable by the client under the doctrine of undue influence, which treats client gifts as presumptively fraudulent. If effectuation of a substantial gift requires preparing a legal instrument such as a will or conveyance, however, the client should have the detached advice that another lawyer can provide and the lawyer should advise the client to seek advice of independent counsel. Subdivision (c) recognizes an exception where the client is related by blood or marriage to the donee or the gift is not substantial.

R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.8, Comment
“Gifts to Lawyers.”

In terms of providing guidance for clients who for whatever reason legitimately want to write their lawyers into their wills, California has actually codified (and perhaps beefed up) the litigation-shield contained in the Commentary to our ethics Rule 4-1.8(c) by including it in its probate code. See Cal. Prob.C. §§21350-21356. For a comprehensive list of cases across the country dealing with some version of Rule 4-1.8(c), see ACTEC’s Commentary on MRPC 1.8.

Bottom line, client gifts to lawyers are not illegal, but they are freighted with all sorts of baggage and litigation risks. Florida law and our ethics rules provide solid guidance for effectuating these gifts the right way. Sadly, these suggestions were apparently not followed in this case.

There are all sorts of reasons for why probate practice is interesting. Consider, for example, that even the simplest one-page will is governed by a complex body of law, developed over centuries, that appears nowhere within the four corners of the document, yet can have dramatic consequences. In Florida, this body of law, known as “rules of construction” (i.e., rules that apply when the will is silent, but which can be varied by the terms of the will), has been largely codified in Part VI of chapter 732 of Florida’s Probate Code.

The rule of construction at issue in the linked-to case is Florida’s “nonademption” statute (F.S.732.606).

Ademption is a common law rule of construction used to determine what happens when a specific item of property gifted under a will is no longer in the testator’s estate at the time of his death. In those cases the specific gift is considered “adeemed,” and the gift fails. For example, if testator “X” signs a will specifically devising his condominium located in Marco Island to “Y,” but later sells the Marco Island condominium and buys a replacement condominium for him and Y to enjoy in the Florida Keys, Y gets nothing: the will said Marco Island condo’, not condo’ in the Keys.

The ademption rule was simple, but often ended up disinheriting people in a way that seemed unfair and contrary to what testators would have wanted. The more modern view, reflected in section 2‑606 of the Uniform Probate Code, reverses the common law rule in certain cases.

Melican v. Parker, 289 Ga. 420 (May 31, 2011):

For example, does Y get anything if X signed a sales contract to sell the Marco Island condominium before his death, but the sale didn’t close until after he died? That’s what happened in the linked-to Georgia Supreme Court case applying Florida law. Under the common law rule, Y gets nothing. Applying the UPC’s modern view, Florida’s nonademption statute completely changes this outcome: Y may not get the condominium, but when the deal closes, she gets the cash. Here’s why, as explained by the court in the Melican case:

Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 732.606(2)(a) (the “nonademption statute”), “[a] specific devisee has the right to the remaining specifically devised property and … [a]ny balance of the purchase price owing from a purchaser to the testator at death because of sale of the property.” Therefore, where, as here, a balance is owed to a testator from the sale of his or her real property located in Florida, the proceeds from this sale are due to the specific devisee who would have otherwise inherited the real property under the will. Id. See also Ott v. Ott, 418 So.2d 460, 462 (Fla.App.1982) (“The original intent of the [nonademption statute] … was to prevent ademption in all cases involving sale … of specifically devised assets when the testator’s death occurred before the proceeds of the sale … had been paid to the testator”) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied). Accordingly, Melican, as the specific devisee of the Florida condominium under Strother’s Will, was entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the condominium after Strother’s death, as these proceeds had not yet been paid to Strother before he died. Fla. Stat. § 732.606(2)(a).

Steffens v. Evans, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 4577938 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 05, 2011)

In 2002 Mr. Steffens writes his wife into his will. Things get rocky, and in 2007 the couple enters into a post-nuptial agreement that contains a waiver of all inheritance rights. Mr. Steffens dies in 2009 and the issue becomes whether his 2007 post-nup’ trumps his 2002 will. The trial court and the 4th DCA both say YES. Here’s why:

Tracking the language in section 732.702(1), the Post–Nuptial Agreement refers to the parties waiving “all rights” several times:

Each party freely and voluntarily irrevocably waives all rights in the earnings, property and estate of the other as well as any right to alimony, support or any other monetary relief in the event of a dissolution of marriage or death, except as specifically provided herein.

….

4.1 Except as is otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, each party waives, relinquishes and releases all right, title and interest in and to any and all of the other party’s separate property (See Section 5) to which each party may otherwise be entitled as the spouse of the other party, widow or widower, heir at law, next of kin or distributee, upon or by virtue of a termination of the marriage of the parties by death, divorce, dissolution of marriage, annulment or otherwise….

….

4.2 The waiver contained herein is to be broadly construed pursuant to Section 732.702, Florida Statutes.

(emphasis added.) Accordingly, as Jeffrey’s 2002 will was executed before the parties’ 2007 Post–Nuptial Agreement, the Post–Nuptial Agreement waived any benefits that would have passed to Andrea under the 2002 will.

The Third District reached a similar result in Hulsh v. Hulsh, 431 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In Hulsh, the court examined whether the language of a post-will antenuptial agreement between the decedent and the widow was effective to waive the widow’s right to take under the will. Hulsh, 431 So.2d at 660.

…

Ultimately, relying on section 732.702(1), the court determined that it had “no difficulty in deciding that the language of the antenuptial agreement was sufficient to waive Marcella’s rights to take under the provisions of Sheldon Hulsh’s will.” Id. at 662 (footnote omitted). Similarly, we find that the language of the Post–Nuptial Agreement waived Andrea’s rights to take under the provisions of Jeffrey’s will.

The issue I found most interesting was how the court dealt with a “voluntary gifts” clause in the post-nuptial agreement permitting either spouse to make gifts to the other after the post-nup’, and stating that those gifts would not be subject to the waivers contained in the post-nup. This is a common clause found in most marital agreements of any sophistication.

[“voluntary gifts” clause]

Notwithstanding the terms of this Agreement, either party shall have the right to voluntarily transfer or convey to the other party any property or interest therein, whether Separate Property or other property, which may be lawfully conveyed or transferred during his or her lifetime, or by will or otherwise upon death. Neither party intends by this Agreement to limit or restrict in any way the right and power of the other to receive any such voluntary transfer or conveyance. Such gifts shall not constitute an amendment to or other change in this Agreement, regardless of the extent or frequency of such gifts. Any gifts given by one party to the other hereafter shall constitute the receiving party’s separate property.

So if I write you into my will in 2002 but don’t die until 2009, when did I make a gift? In 2002 or 2009? For tax and property law purposes, the law is clear: no gift until 2009. That same logic apparently doesn’t extend to marital agreements. According to the 4th DCA, the gift was made in 2002 not 2009, thus the 2007 post-nup’ clearly voids it.

Thus, [the post-nuptial agreement] unambiguously refers to transfers of property after the 2007 Post–Nuptial Agreement and would not reserve Andrea’s beneficiary rights under the 2002 will.

I’m not sure this logic adds up. If I were on the 4th DCA, I would have framed my analysis of the “voluntary gifts” clause in contract-construction terms. Did the post-nup’ cover pre-existing wills or not? That how the Florida Supreme Court recently held courts are supposed to deal with beneficiary-designation forms benefiting ex-spouses. See Crawford v. Barker, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 2224808 (Fla. Jun 09, 2011), which I wrote about here. Instead, the 4th DCA hung its hat on “Andrea’s beneficiary rights under the 2002 will.”  What rights? She didn’t have any “rights” until 2009?

Lesson Learned?

Until a Florida court says otherwise, the rule seems to be that a general waiver contained in a marital agreement is good enough to void a pre-existing will, even if the marital agreement says nothing specific about the pre-existing will.

If your legal practice involves drafting marital agreements, you’ll want to make sure your “voluntary gifts” clause specifically addressed pre-existing wills, trusts, etc. If the couple intends to void a pre-existing will, you’ll want to explicitly say so. If that’s not their intent, you’ll want to say that too. Either way, specifically addressing the issue will hopefully spare all sides from the expense and stress inherent to the litigation the parties in this case lived through.

Siegel v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, — So.3d —-, 2011 WL 4949794 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 19, 2011)

This is the third 4th DCA appellate opinion arising out of this one case (see here, here). This time around the issue of “standing” was front and center. The remainder beneficiaries of a revocable trust are suing JP Morgan Chase, who served as trustee of the trust prior to the settlor’s death. The crucial facts from a trust administration point of view were the following:

Rautbord appointed JP Morgan Chase Bank as her trustee in 1995 . . . . At some point after the execution of the 1995 amendment, Rautbord developed severe dementia.

Incapacitated settlor of revocable trust = standing for remainder beneficiaries to sue trustee:

Because the settlor was incapacitated, she lacked the requisite mental capacity to knowingly consent to JP Morgan Chase’s actions as trustee of her revocable trust. This lack of knowing, competent consent is what opened the door to the remainder beneficiaries’ lawsuit against the bank after the settlor died. Here’s how the 4th DCA explained the law in New York that provides the remainder beneficiaries with standing to sue JP Morgan Chase. As reflected here in a similar 4th DCA case involving Bank of America, the result would likely be the same under Florida law.

In Siegel I, Judge Gross detailed New York law and concluded that the brothers did have standing to challenge the trust distributions. Specifically, the opinion held:

[U]nder New York law, after the death of the settlor, the beneficiaries of a revocable trust have standing to challenge pre-death withdrawals from the trust which [1] are outside of the purposes authorized by the trust and which [2] were not approved or ratified by the settlor personally or through a method contemplated through the trust instrument. By outside the purposes of the trust we mean any expenditures that were not “appropriate or advisable for the support, maintenance, health, comfort or general welfare of” Mrs. Rautbord.

Id. at 95–96 (emphasis in original). Explaining this holding, Judge Gross relied on New York law, which governs the trust:

The court in Estate of Morse, 177 Misc.2d 43, 676 N.Y.S.2d 407, 409 (N.Y.Sur.1998), described the broad reach of New York’s concept of standing:

In that light, it has been noted that “anyone who would be deprived of property in the broad sense of the word … is authorized to appear and be heard upon the subject” of whether a will that would thus affect him adversely should be admitted to probate ( Matter of Davis, 182 N.Y. [468, 472, 75 N.E. 530 (N.Y.1905) ] ). Accordingly, standing to object to probate does not require an interest that is “absolute”; a contingent interest will be enough ( see Matter of Silverman, 91 Misc.2d 125, 397 N.Y.S.2d 319). In other words, the uncertainty of an interest should not preclude its holder from seeking to protect it, i.e., she should have standing to object to a propounded instrument that makes the possibility of benefit even more remote or eliminates such possibility entirely.

Id. at 95–96. Judge Gross noted, “With an interest in the corpus of the trust after the death of their mother, the Siegels have standing to challenge the disbursements; they have alleged a concrete and immediate injury, caused by Novak and the Bank, which could be redressed by the circuit court. Without this remedy, wrongdoing concealed from a settlor during her lifetime would be rewarded.” Id. at 96 (emphasis added).

The mentally incapacitated settlor of a revocable trust can never knowingly “approve or ratify” any actions. No informed consent = potential future lawsuits for trustee.

Need informed consent from incapacitated trust settlor? Think court-appointed guardian . . .

When you serve as trustee of a revocable trust, your risk exposure is considerably less because under F.S. 736.0603(1), as long as the settlor is alive he or she is the only person you owe any fiduciary duties to. However, the lack of exposure to claims by remainder beneficiaries of a revocable trust is premised on the settlor’s ability to give informed consent to your actions. If the settlor is mentally incapacitated . . . EVERYTHING CHANGES!

So what can you do if you’re the trustee of a revocable trust whose settlor is mentally incapacitated? Well, one option is to simply resign. Saying “yes” to service as trustee of a revocable trust while the settlor is healthy is a world away from saying “yes” to service as trustee of the revocable trust of an incapacitated settlor. If you’re not going to resign, then you need to think about how you’re going to get informed consent for your actions as trustee. The goal is to make sure that perhaps years in the future, after the settlor has died and the remainder beneficiaries are examining – in hindsight – every move you ever made as trustee, no one can ever claim “wrongdoing [was] concealed from [the] settlor during her lifetime.”

The best (perhaps only) way to ensure the trustee has the informed consent of an incapacitated settlor is to petition for the appointment of a guardian and then account/report to that guardian (until the settlor dies, accounting/reporting to the revocable trust’s remainder beneficiaries may violate your duty of confidentiality to the settlor).

Once you have a court-appointed guardian, you’ve put in place the foundation for legally binding informed consent (thus foreclosing future lawsuits by disgruntled remainder beneficiaries). Building on that foundation, any trust accounting you serve on the settlor’s guardian that is subsequently approved of by court order in which all “interested persons” have been served (i.e., make sure you serve all of the revocable trust’s remainder beneficiaries in the context of the guardianship proceeding), will then legally bind the settlor and all remainder beneficiaries. Presto! No future lawsuits. If JP Morgan Chase had coupled these protective measures with a trust-accounting “limitations notice” triggering the shortened 6-month statute of limitations period for all items fully disclosed in each respective accounting/report [see F.S. 736.1008(2)], my guess is that any real (or even arguable) wrongdoing would have been caught early, corrected to the court’s satisfaction, and the beneficiaries of this trust would have been spared close to a decade of costly litigation after the settlor’s death.