Thomas v. Thomas, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 391833 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb 05, 2010)

There are certain key milestones in a probate proceeding where Florida’s probate rules build in ultra-short limitations periods designed to bring disputes to a head quickly or forever bar them. One of those milestones is when the personal representative files his final accounting. Probate Rule 5.401 says that anyone wanting to object to a final accounting has only 30 days to file an objection, and 90 days from the filing of the objection in which to serve a notice of hearing. Miss those deadlines and you’re out of luck, no matter how legitimate your objections may be. Here are the relevant portions of Rule 5.401:

Rule 5.401. Objections to . . . Final Accounting

(a) Objections. An interested person may object to the . . . final accounting within 30 days after the service of the later of the . . . final accounting on that interested person.

*     *     *

(d) Hearing on Objections. Any interested person may set a hearing on the objections. Notice of the hearing shall be given to all interested persons. If a notice of hearing on the objections is not served within 90 days of filing of the objections, the objections shall be deemed abandoned and the personal representative may make distribution as set forth in the plan of distribution.

In the linked-to opinion the parties objecting to the final accounting argued that because the accounting wasn’t complete, it didn’t count as a “final” accounting, so Rule Rule 5.401’s ultra-short limitations periods didn’t apply. Clever, but no cigar. The probate judge didn’t buy this argument, and neither did the 5th DCA. Here’s how the 5th DCA explained its ruling:

On December 3, 2008, the court entered a final judgment granting .  .  .  the motion to strike the objection to the final accounting. The Appellee argues that the court based its ruling on the fact that the objection to the final accounting was not timely filed. That is, the accounting was filed June 16, 2006, and the objection was not filed until October 12, 2006, well beyond the 30 days in which to object as provided by rule 5.401(a).

Appellants contend that the final accounting filed in this case was not complete and, therefore, it was not a final accounting. The Appellants cite no authority for their position and this Court disagrees.

It is clear that a final accounting was filed June 19, 2006, and if infirmities in the final accounting existed, the Appellants had 30 days in which to file an objection, and 90 days from the filing of the objection in which to have a hearing. They did neither. The court found that the objection was waived.

But Wait, There’s More!

I received a comment to this blog post from über probate litigator Brian Felcoski. He makes an important point that goes to the 5th DCA’s construction of the rule’s 90-day requirement.

Hi Juan. I saw your post concerning the Thomas decision. The language in the decision suggesting one needs to have a hearing within 90 days from filing the objection to accounting does not appear to be consistent with Florida Probate Rule 5.401. The language of the rule speaks to service of the notice of hearing and not the actual hearing itself. The committee notes reflect that (d) was amended “to clarify that 90-day period pertains to service of hearing notice, not the actual hearing date.” You might want to make an editor’s note on your probate litigation blog to make your readers aware of this issue. I am copying Tae Bronner, Chair of the Section’s probate law and procedure committee, and asking that her committee review the issue and determine if action is warranted to clarify the rule further. Best regards. Brian Felcoski

Listen to this post

The linked-to opinion is yet another example of yet another plaintiffs lawyer seeing his trial-court win go up in smoke because he blew a probate creditor filing deadline. The last time I wrote about this problem was a med-mal case. This time around it was a personal injury case arising out of an automobile/ motorcycle accident.

Plaintiffs suing estates often fail to realize that they’re really litigating their claims in two separate courts in front of two separate judges:

  1. The trial court adjudicating their lawsuit (this is where the decedent’s liability is established); and
  2. The probate court administering the decedent’s probate estate (this is where you go to collect on your judgment).

What’s scary about this dual-court approach is that it creates a huge trap for the unwary: you can spend years and a fortune in fees litigating claims against an estate in a trial court and never be the wiser to the fact that you’ve blown past one of the ultra-short limitations periods applicable in a probate court under F.S. 733.702 or F.S. 733.710; which means no matter how spectacular your win might be at trial, you’ll never be able to collect on your judgment in the probate court.

Case Study

Grainger v. Wald, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 479862 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb 12, 2010)

In the linked-to opinion above the plaintiff eventually prevailed in his lawsuit, but the judgment wasn’t rendered until after the decedent’s death. In order to collect on his judgment, plaintiff needed to file a creditor claim against the probate estate of the now deceased defendant. This is where things went south for the plaintiff (and a good probate lawyer working for the estate snatched victory from the jaws of defeat!!).

At some time during the course of the litigation plaintiff’s personal injury attorney was served with a “creditors notice” in connection with the probate proceeding. The personal injury lawyer apparently ignored this notice, which ultimately resulted in his trial court win being forfeited (ouch!!). Here are the key facts/dates as recounted by the 1st DCA:

Wald was involved in an automobile/motorcycle accident with the decedent and brought a personal injury lawsuit to recover damages. Wald eventually prevailed in his lawsuit, but the judgment was not rendered until after the decedent’s death. Some time after obtaining the judgment, Wald filed a claim against the probate estate.

The personal representative argued she had served notice on Wald’s attorney as required by Florida Probate Rule 5.041(b) (2009) on May 23, 2007, thus triggering the time constraints of section 733.702(1). Therefore, under the statute, Wald had until June 22, 2007, to file any claim he might have. Since Wald’s claim was not filed until July 2, 2007, the personal representative argued it was untimely and forever barred .

So far so good for the estate. But then the probate judge did something the 1st DCA characterized as “bizarre”: he declared the estate’s creditor notice wasn’t valid because plaintiff’s personal injury attorney had been served instead of plaintiff’s probate attorney. What?! Yeah, that’s what the 1st DCA said too.

There are two reasons why the probate court erred in finding the time constraints of section 733.702(1) inapplicable.

First, the Florida Probate Rules do not make any distinction based on the scope of an attorney’s representation of a client. A personal representative would have no way of knowing such information. These descriptive labels, such as “probate” attorney or “personal injury” attorney do not appear in the Rule 5.041(b), which governs the service of pleadings and papers in probate actions. Instead, the Rule simply requires that if a creditor is represented by an attorney, service must be on the attorney and not on the creditor. The language of Rule 5.041(b) states that “when service is required or permitted to be made on an interested person represented by an attorney, service shall be made on the attorney unless service on the interested person is ordered by the court.” (emphasis added). …

Second, regardless of whether the attorney served was labeled the “probate” or the “personal injury” attorney, the record reflects that Wald had actual notice and that he received notice in time to file the claim. Wald received all process that was due. The record contains Wald’s original statement of claim against the estate. Although the claim was not filed until July 2, 2007, Wald signed the claim on June 16, 2007-at least six days before the time for filing claims was to expire. “[D]ue process requires the personal representative to give notice by any means that is certain to ensure actual notice of the running of the non-claim period.” Estate of Ortolano, 766 So.2d 330, 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (emphasis added). Considering the date of Wald’s signature, he had actual notice and sufficient time to file a claim within the 30-day statute of limitations. Therefore, any failure was not in the service of the notice, but in the untimely filing of the claim. Since there was no excuse for Wald’s failure to file the claim in a timely manner, it should have been declared time barred under section 733.702(1).

Sometimes courts will ignore DNA test results as a matter of law [click here, here]. And then there are those cases where who wins or loses can turn on a DNA test. Not surprisingly, if the estate is being litigated and a DNA test could help one side win, the other side may not voluntarily hand over a DNA sample. In those cases you’ll need a court order compelling the DNA test.

Until now Florida law’s been very muddy on exactly what you need to do to get a court order compelling a DNA test in probate litigation. Into this gap stepped the 2d DCA, delivering an excellent road map for Florida probate lawyers confronted with this problem.

DNA Testing & Probate Litigation: 2d DCA’s Five-Step Road Map:

  1. Frame the issue as a discovery request to test human bodily fluids
  2. Rely on Civil Procedure Rule 1.360 (Examination of Persons)
  3. Satisfy rule 1.360’s “in controversy” requirement
  4. Satisfy rule 1.360’s “good cause” requirement
  5. Satisfy rule 1.360’s “balancing-the-interests” requirement

Doe v. Suntrust Bank, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 323031 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan 29, 2010):

In the linked-to opinion a guardian ad litem sought to compel the decedent’s two legitimate children to provide a DNA sample (via a buccal swab) to establish the paternity of “Madeline Doe”: a nine-year old out-of-wedlock child whose mother was claiming she was the decedent’s child. The 2d DCA framed the issue this way:

We view [the] motion for DNA testing as a discovery request and the trial court’s order as one compelling discovery.

Having framed the issue as a discovery request the court then tells us what discovery rule we need to rely on: Civil Procedure Rule 1.360 (“Examination of Persons”). By the way, in almost every appellate decision involving DNA testing in probate litigation the lawyers and the trial court always get this wrong, mistakenly focusing on the wrong discovery rule or failing to even state exactly which discovery rule they’re operating under (probably because they’re not sure). No one should repeat that mistake after reading this opinion.

Procedurally, this case is similar to Wicky v. Oxonian, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1612 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug.14, 2009). In Wicky, the personal representative of an estate pursuing a wrongful death claim filed a discovery request seeking permission to test an existing sample of the defendant’s blood. The personal representative’s motion did not identify the rule of civil procedure that authorized the testing, although it mentioned rule 1.280, the general discovery rule. The defendant thought the request was made under rule 1.350, which addresses the production of documents and things. This court concluded that neither rule governed the request, and that “a request to test human bodily fluids in a civil action must satisfy the requirements of rule 1.360, ‘Examination of Persons.’ “ Id. at D1612.

The 2d DCA then did something you don’t often see. It went on to explain in detail what kind of evidence a working probate lawyer would need to put in front of his or her probate judge to satisfy all of rule 1.360’s requirements as applied to DNA testing in a contested probate proceeding. For those of us in the trenches this kind of guidance is pure gold, so I’m providing all of it. It’s a relatively long excerpt but well worth reading.

[“in controversy” requirement]

First, we note that the issue of whether Madelin is Doe’s child, and thus a beneficiary of his trusts, is clearly at the heart of this litigation. However, thus far, it appears that the only pleadings suggesting she may be his child are the Trustee’s verified complaint, which simply attests to the Trustee’s knowledge that Madelin claims to be Doe’s child and her verified motion to compel testing which states only that she “maintains she is a child born out of wedlock” to Doe. We believe something more is required, for example, an affidavit from Madelin’s mother alleging paternity and setting forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility of the requisite sexual contact with Doe. See § 742.12(2) (requiring a sworn statement or declaration under penalty of perjury alleging paternity and setting forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility of the requisite sexual contact between the parties as a perquisite to obtaining an order for scientific testing). Such an affidavit would satisfy the requirement that the subject matter of the test be “really and genuinely” in controversy. See Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 119.

[“good cause” requirement]

Madelin will also have to demonstrate “good cause” for her request that Adrian and Evelyn be required to provide a buccal swab sample for testing. In the typical paternity action, a compelled DNA test is dispositive of the issue in controversy, and thus good cause for the test is established. See Wicky, 34 Fla. L. Weekly at D1613. This case is not, however, a typical paternity case because it is the legitimate children of the deceased putative father who are being asked to submit a sample of their DNA for testing. Under these circumstances, we believe two considerations are important in determining the existence of good cause. First, it would seem appropriate that Madelin provide some evidence that a comparison of her DNA with the DNA of Doe’s legitimate children could produce a result that would tend to prove or disprove the existence of a genetic link between Doe and Madelin. Second, it would also seem appropriate to require that she make some showing of need. For example, in the arguments presented to this court, Madelin and the Trustee have indicated that Doe was cremated, thus eliminating the possibility of any comparison with a sample derived from his remains. As far as we can tell, this fact was not presented as evidence in the trial court. Likewise, while the Trustee’s verified complaint suggests that no official documentation exists that would allow Madelin to establish that Doe is her father, it seems reasonable to require a more definitive statement to that effect, perhaps from Madelin’s guardian ad litem.

[“balancing-the-interests” requirement]

Finally, as we explained in Wicky, in all discovery matters the competing interests of the parties must be balanced. 34 Fla. L. Weekly at D1613. Doe did not name specific beneficiaries in his trusts; instead he instructed that the assets in the trusts be divided among his children. Other language in the trusts indicates he contemplated the possibility of having children other than Adrian and Evelyn. Given that this is an action to determine the beneficiaries of his trusts, consideration should be given to effectuating his intent as expressed in the trusts. As for Madelin, if she is in fact Doe’s child, her rights with respect to the trusts are equal to those of Evelyn and Adrian. Further, her interests are akin to those of an out of wedlock child seeking to share in the intestate estate of a parent. Florida recognizes the right of an out-of-wedlock child to share in a parent’s estate. See § 732.108(2). Florida also recognizes the right of a child born out of wedlock to establish paternity after the death of the father. See § 732.108(2)(b). For that right to be meaningful, the child must have a fair opportunity to prove that the deceased is her father. What is fair may vary from case to case, but any evaluation should take into account the heightened burden of proof imposed on out-of-wedlock children who seek to establish paternity after the death of the putative father. See Berkey v. Odom (In re Estate of Odom ), 397 So.2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (holding that in an action to establish paternity after the death of the father, proof of paternity shall be by clear and convincing evidence), disapproved on other grounds, Wilson v. Scruggs ( In re Estate of Smith ), 685 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1996).

On the other hand, Adrian and Evelyn have a privacy interest they seek to protect. In considering the weight to afford that interest, several factors are important. First, the intrusion is minimal-the test Madelin seeks is noninvasive, and the purpose of the test is limited to comparing her DNA to theirs. Second, rule 1.360(a)(3) provides that the court, upon request, may establish protective rules governing an examination. Thus far, Adrian and Evelyn have only asserted a generalized complaint that submitting a DNA sample invades their privacy, however, if they are able to articulate any specific privacy concern, they have the ability to ask the court to fashion protective rules to address that concern. Third, Adrian and Evelyn have affirmatively denied that Madelin is Doe’s child, and they have actively opposed all efforts by her or Maria to prove that they are his children. Having taken that position, it is questionable whether they should be permitted to withhold the evidence that may put Madelin’s claim and their defense to rest once and for all. They have the alternative of conceding that Madelin is a beneficiary should they wish to avoid the test.

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

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

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

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

Ouch! What would prompt [Judge] Winikoff to call Morrison’s testimony and demeanor “outrageous?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *     *     *

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

Listen to this post

An overarching theme of Florida’s probate code is the tension between basic due-process rights on the one hand and Florida’s strong public policy favoring the speedy administration of estates on the other. Florida’s 2-year non-claim statute [F.S. 733.710] epitomizes this tension because of its simplicity and utter disregard for equitable considerations. When it comes to unsecured creditors, after 2 years it’s game over . . . period, no exceptions.

Case Study

In re Estate of Harrison, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 503077 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. Jan 29, 2010)

In the linked-to opinion the unsecured probate creditor –  UK insurance giant Lloyd’s of London – cried foul when the debtor’s son strategically waited two years and one day! to commence his father’s probate proceeding . . . thereby automatically triggering application of Florida’s 2-year non-claim statute . . . thereby automatically barring all of his father’s unsecured creditor claims, including Lloyd’s. Lloyd’s argued that the debtor’s son – the designated personal representative under his father’s will – had an affirmative duty to advise his father’s creditors that they needed to open a probate proceeding in Florida and file a claim within two years of the debtor’s date of death.

While a personal representative does have affirmative duties to estate creditors after he’s appointed, those duties don’t apply before he’s appointed. This was the hole in Lloyd’s argument, and why the estate won this one. Here’s how the judge summarized the key legal issues:

As a matter of law, Randolph Harrison, as the beneficiary and named personal representative, had no affirmative or fiduciary duty before his appointment as personal representative. Florida Statute 733.601 is clear that a personal representative’s duties commence upon appointment. Prior to his official appointment, Randolph Harrison had no affirmative duty as a fiduciary; he had no fiduciary relationship with the English Creditors; and he had no duty to notify them of the Florida legal structure or their opportunity to open a probate estate or file a claim. The only allegation against Randolph Harrison is that he kept his silence for two years and a day. The Court holds as a matter of law that that is not a breach of any duty. Additionally, his silence about Florida law is not fraud. There is no statutory or common law requirement to urge a creditor, who obviously knew about the death of its obligor and who apparently knew about assets in Florida, to open probate in Florida. .  .  .  It was incumbent upon the English Creditors to familiarize themselves with Florida law, open a probate and file a claim. For whatever reason, the English Creditors elected not to do so.

There was simply no fraud in Randolph Harrison waiting to open the Florida probate. There is absolutely no requirement under probate law that creditors of a decedent be paid before beneficiaries receive anything. In fact, the statutory scheme suggests the opposite. The whole substance of having a non-claims bar like Section 733.710 is to allow a beneficiary to receive assets free of creditor claims after the two-year period. For a beneficiary to take advantage of that legal structure is not fraud.

Lesson learned?

If you’re going to try to run the 2-year non-claim statute clock on your creditors, don’t even open the estate. Do nothing. Unless a creditor takes the extraordinary step of commencing a probate proceeding just to collect on his debt, the estate wins by default.

Here’s something you don’t see every day: an acknowledgment by a credible source usually not associated with the “liberal media” (Rupert Murdoch’s the WSJ) reporting that repeal of the estate tax is not a free ride, there are consequences: taxes will be shifted from a wealthier segment of the U.S. population to a less wealthy segment of the U.S. population. As reported by the WSJ in Why No Estate Tax Could Be a Killer:

Congress shocked everyone by letting the estate tax lapse on Jan. 1.

Now, here is the real stunner: For many, the lapse actually will raise taxes.

Under last year’s law, estates up to $3.5 million, or $7 million for married couples, were exempt from federal tax. This year that law has been replaced by a fiendishly complex levy raising taxes on the assets of those with little as $1.3 million. It will affect the heirs of at least 50,000 U.S. taxpayers who die this year, whereas the old law affected only about 15,000 estates a year, according to the Tax Policy Center.

“The new system is far worse for many people who have assets between $1.3 million and $3.5 million,” says veteran estate lawyer Ronald Aucutt, of McGuire Woods.

The linked-to article does a good job of walking readers through a simple hypothetical demonstrating how differently this year’s and last year’s regimes treat the same asset held by two fictional widows: Ms. Bentley has total assets of $20 million, while Ms. Subaru’s total is $2 million. Guess who is paying more taxes this year?

Burgess v. Prince, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 199422 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 22, 2010)

Access to trust funds is usually a zero-sum game: If I pay trust funds to one party, there’s less money for everyone else. We usually think of this problem in terms of conflicting claims between trust beneficiaries: if I pay $$ to beneficiary “A,” there’s less $$ for beneficiary “B.”

So is there a way to boost payments to beneficiary A without diminishing beneficiary B’s share of the trust? Yes!

One option is to “grow the pie,” so there’s more to go around for everyone [click here]. Another option is to pay beneficiary A to do some of the trust-administration work being done by third parties. As long as beneficiary A can do the job, this transaction is an economic wash as far as beneficiary B is concerned. So why not “keep the money in the family” by paying a trust beneficiary – rather than an unrelated third party – to do the work? Professionals who take the time to understand this opportunity can become heroes to their trust-beneficiary clients. The linked-to opinion is an example of this second option in action.

Trust beneficiary as Business Manager:

In the linked-to opinion the trust owned Salt Creek Art Works, a large art studio and gallery. One of the trust’s beneficiaries was serving as trustee of the trust and business manager for Salt Creek Art Works. The trust agreement provided that a beneficiary may not receive compensation for serving as trustee, but there was nothing stopping her from getting paid for the work she did as business manager. In fact, the trust agreement specifically authorized a trustee/beneficiary to hire herself to do any work the trust required.

When the trustee/beneficiary was removed as trustee she was also stripped of her business-manager fees. On appeal the 2d DCA reversed this ruling by simply applying the clear text of the trust agreement.

Section 6.2 of the Trust provides that a beneficiary may not receive compensation for serving as Trustee:

Any Trustee, whether an individual or corporate trustee, who may serve under the Trust shall be entitled to receive compensation for its services as Trustee in accordance with its schedule of rates in effect at the time the services are rendered, including minimum fees and additional compensation for special investment and interests in a closely-held business. Any Trustee who is also a beneficiary under the Trust shall serve without compensation.

(Emphasis added.) Our record demonstrates, however, that Ms. Burgess did not receive compensation for her service as Trustee. Rather, she received a modest monthly payment from the Trust for operating the ongoing business of Salt Creek Art Works. The payments she received were not contrary to the terms of the Trust. Indeed, the Trust allows compensation to a Trustee serving in other capacities. Section 6.4 empowers the Trustee:

[T]o employ accountants, actuaries, appraisers, attorneys, brokers, building contractors, custodians, investment managers, realtors, and other agents including any Trustee, if such employment be deemed necessary or desirable and to pay reasonable compensation for their services without diminution of any fiduciary’s commissions….

(Emphasis added.)

Finally, section 6.5 allows the Trustee to compensate a beneficiary for business management duties:

To determine in his or her discretion the manner and extent of his or her active participation in the business, and to delegate all or any part of his or her power to supervise and operate to such person or persons as he or she may select, including any associate, partner, officer or employee of the business.

To hire and discharge officers and employees, fix their compensation and define their duties; and to employ, compensate and discharge agents, attorneys, consultants, accountants and such other representatives as the Trustee may deem appropriate; including the right to employ any beneficiary or individual fiduciary in any capacity.

(Emphasis added.)

Relying on the plain language of the Trust document, we must conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that Ms. Burgess could not be compensated for managing Salt Creek Art Works.

As reported by Forbes in States Race To Clean Up Congress’ Estate Tax Mess, several states – including Florida – aren’t waiting around for Congress to get its act together on the estate tax front.

While Congress dilly dallies, the states are racing to come to the aid of families whose estate plans have been thrown into disarray by the Jan. 1 lapse of the federal estate tax. That lapse could, among other things, lead to the unintended disinheritance of spouses, which could in turn lead to expensive legal fights among family members and, ultimately, the impoverishment of some widows or widowers. It could also, ironically, force some families to pay extra state estate taxes.

Legislators in a handful of states, led by Virginia [click here], have already introduced legislation to try to head off such bad results. Virginia’s House of Delegates passed its “emergency” bill unanimously Tuesday and the state’s Senate is expected to take it up immediately [click here]. Similar bills are pending in Maryland, Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee and Washington. Other states, including Florida and New York, have somewhat different legislation pending.

By the way, Forbes has a very cool interactive map showing state-level estate tax laws for 2010 [click here].

Florida’s Statutory Fix

At this year’s Heckerling conference one of the giants of the Florida trusts and estates bar, Bruce Stone, reported on Florida’s statutory fix (CS/HB 361) in an excellent presentation entitled The Clock Struck Midnight: Now What Do We Do?  You can track the status of CS/HB 361 here. Full text of the bill is here.  The following is the proposed trust-code provision as reported by Bruce:

The following is a draft as of noon Monday, January 18, 2010, of a statute to be proposed for adoption in Florida, addressing the uncertainties and potential liabilities of fiduciaries caused by repeal of the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes. The proposed statute may be submitted to the Florida legislature for its regular session which convenes on March 2, 2010.

Section I – section 736.04114 shall be created as follows:

736.04114 Limited judicial construction of irrevocable trust with federal tax provisions.–

(1) Upon the application of a trustee or any qualified beneficiary of a trust, a court at any time may construe the terms of a trust that is not then revocable to define the respective shares or determine beneficiaries, in accordance with the intention of the settlor, if a transfer occurs during the applicable period and the trust contains a provision that:

(a) includes a formula devise referring to the “unified credit”, “estate tax exemption,” “applicable exemption amount,” “applicable credit amount,” “applicable exclusion amount,” “generation-skipping transfer tax exemption,” “GST exemption,” “marital deduction,” “maximum marital deduction,” or “unlimited marital deduction;”

(b) measures a share of a trust based on the amount that can pass free of federal estate tax or the amount that can pass free of federal generation-skipping transfer tax;

(c) otherwise makes a devise referring to a charitable deduction, marital deduction, or a similar provision of federal estate tax or generation-skipping transfer tax law; or

(d) appears to be intended to reduce or minimize federal estate tax or generation skipping transfer tax.

(2) For the purpose of this section:

(a) “applicable period” means a period beginning January 1, 2010 and ending on the earlier of (i) December 31, 2010, or (ii) the date that an act becomes law that repeals or otherwise modifies or has the effect of repealing or modifying Section 901 of The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of2001.

(b) a “transfer occurs” when an interest takes effect in possession or enjoyment.

(3) In construing the trust, the court shall consider the terms and purposes of the trust, the facts and circumstances surrounding the creation of the trust, and the settlor’s probable intent. In determining the settlor’s probable intent, the court may consider evidence relevant to the settlor’s intent even though the evidence contradicts an apparent plain meaning of the trust instrument.

(4) This section does not apply to a transfer that is specifically conditioned upon no federal estate or generation skipping transfer tax being imposed at the time of the transfer.

(5) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, during the applicable period and without court order, the trustee administering a trust containing one or more provisions described in subsection (1) may (a) delay or refrain from making any distribution, (b) incur and pay fees and costs reasonably necessary to determine its duties and obligations (including compliance with provisions of existing and reasonably anticipated future federal tax laws), and (c) establish and maintain reserves for the payment of these fees and costs and federal taxes. The trustee shall not be liable for its actions as provided in this subsection made or taken in good faith.

(6) The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of rights under the Florida Trust Code or the common law to construe a trust.

Foster v. Estate of Gomes, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 322170 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 29, 2010)

Prenuptial agreements limiting themselves solely to spousal inheritance rights are governed by F.S. § 732.702. All other prenuptial agreements are governed by the more burdensome requirements of Florida’s Premarital Agreement Act, found at F.S. § 61.079.

Generally speaking, inheritance-rights prenup’s are a whole lot simpler to draft, less costly for clients, and easier to enforce. Why? One big reason is that these agreements (if executed prior to the marriage) don’t require prospective spouses to go through all of the financial disclosure normally needed to make prenup’s governed by Florida’s Premarital Agreement Act stick. This distinction is often lost on attorneys used to litigating prenup’s in divorce proceedings, and was at the heart of the court’s ruling in the linked-to opinion.

Prior to their marriage, Lora Foster and Edward Gomes entered into an antenuptial agreement in which Ms. Foster waived all right to Mr. Gomes’s property, including her right to an elective share. Although not required by Florida law, Mr. Gomes disclosed the bulk of his assets when they entered the agreement, omitting one asset valued at approximately $10,000.

*     *     *

Florida law does not require prior disclosure of assets for an antenuptial agreement. § 732.702(2). Recognizing this, Appellant argues that a disclosure, once made, albeit voluntarily, if inaccurate or fraudulent, invalidates the antenuptial agreement, citing Stregack v. Moldofsky, 474 So.2d 206 (Fla.1985) (Ehrlich, J., dissenting). Unfortunately for Appellant, that dissenting opinion has not garnered a consensus either within the Florida Legislature or Florida courts. We prefer, instead, to rely upon the binding majority opinion which stated, “[n]ondisclosure, whether fraudulent or not, is precisely what the legislature intended to eliminate from consideration on the validity of antenuptial agreements.” Stregack, 474 So.2d at 207. In so holding, the law continues to accommodate the desires of older Florida residents to marry again without risking an unwanted disposition of a lifetime’s assets due to a partial disclosure. See id.

Listen to this post

We’ve all been there: you’ve been locked in mediation for hours and an unreasonable/ irrational litigant refuses to settle, even if – given the risks and benefits – it’s plain to everyone that he ought to accept the settlement offer on the table. The linked-to case addresses this type of situation.

Since most working probate lawyers will find themselves on both sides of this conundrum at one point or another in their career, I thought the best way to think about this case was from both perspectives.

What if I represent the side that refuses to settle, no matter how reasonable the offer?

No matter how frustrating this situation may be, you have to fight the temptation to subtly “lean” on your client until he accepts a deal you know – without question – is in his best interest. When the dust settles and your unhappy client re-reads the settlement agreement he never really wanted to sign in the first place, you may find yourself on the receiving end of a malpractice lawsuit. Based on the following excerpt from the linked-to opinion, it looks like that’s where this case may be headed:

Here, Rachid does not claim that any party misled or induced her to enter into the settlement agreement. Rather, she contends that her attorney misled or induced her.

Blogger and mediator Victoria Pynchon expands here on the likely consequences of those cases where a litigant believes his lawyer “mislead or induced” him to accept a settlement offer.

Here’s the bad news. If a litigant is unhappy with the outcome of mediation, he or she is far more likely to bring a complaint (or lawsuit) against his or her own attorney.

In a 2006 article in the Ohio Journal on Dispute Resolution TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. LUMP IT OR GRIEVE IT: DESIGNING MEDIATOR COMPLAINT SYSTEMS THAT PROTECT MEDIATORS, UNHAPPY PARTIES, ATTORNEYS, COURTS, THE PROCESS, AND THE FIELD Paula M. Young, Assistant Professor at the Appalachian School of Law cites Mel Rubin on “settle and sue” cases which Rubin suggests are on the rise among clients unhappy with the outcome of a mediation. Rubin “also suggests that if a client is unhappy with the outcome of mediation, he or she is more likely to sue his or her attorney for malpractice. Id.

The gist of Victoria’s advise – which I agree with – is to make sure your client feels he was treated fairly in mediation, that he wasn’t “ganged up on” by the mediator (or you), and that he walks away feeling he was ultimately in control of the final outcome. To that advice I would add: if you think your client is being irrational, the right thing to do may be to tell him to find a new lawyer. As the 3d DCA pointed out not too long ago in a case involving an out-of-control probate litigant, “’just say no’ applies to some clients and matters, just as to drugs” [click here].

What if I represent the side that’s trying to enforce a settlement agreement?

Rachid v. Perez, — So.3d —-, 2010 WL 173776 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan 20, 2010)

If you’re counsel for the good guy, the last thing you want is protracted litigation to enforce a settlement agreement. To nip this sort of challenge in the bud, you’ll want to point the other side to the linked-to opinion and let him or her know that in the absence of truly outrageous circumstances, Florida law forces litigants to live with the deals they’ve struck . . . no matter how badly they may be suffering from buyer’s remorse.

First, Rachid’s burden when seeking rescission of a settlement agreement on this legal theory is a particularly difficult one. See Tilden Groves, 816 So.2d at 660 (“[C]ases settled in mediation are especially unsuited for the liberal application of a rule allowing rescission of a settlement agreement based on unilateral mistake.”); see also Sponga v. Warro, 698 So.2d 621, 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

Second, Rachid’s argument is without merit as the record does not support the legal remedy of rescission on the basis that the settlement agreement was the product of a unilateral mistake. Under Florida law, the party seeking rescission based on unilateral mistake must establish that:

(1) the mistake was induced by the party seeking to benefit from the mistake, (2) there is no negligence or want of due care on the part of the party seeking a return to the status quo, (3) denial of release from the agreement would be inequitable, and (4) the position of the opposing party has not so changed that granting the relief would be unjust.

Lechuga v. Flanigan’s Enters., Inc., 533 So.2d 856, 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Here, Rachid does not claim that any party misled or induced her to enter into the settlement agreement. Rather, she contends that her attorney misled or induced her. Thus, her claim fails as a matter of law. Rachid also cannot demonstrate that there was “no negligence or want of due care” on her part because she had an obligation to read and know the legal parameters regarding the validity and application of the prenuptial agreement prior to mediation. Leff v. Ecker, 972 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (holding that where the plaintiff entered into a mediated settlement agreement with a limited knowledge of the relevant facts, the plaintiff bore the risk of mistake). Additionally, Rachid was represented by counsel at mediation, and she failed to demonstrate that denial of rescission would be inequitable or that granting relief would be unjust. Thus, we conclude that even if Rachid had properly preserved her claim of unilateral mistake, on appellate review her claim would have failed on the merits.

We . . . address the argument that Rachid did raise-that there was no meeting of the minds. As to the trial court’s rejection of this argument, we find no abuse of discretion. See Tanner v. Tanner, 975 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that “ ‘[b]uyer’s remorse’ is not a sufficient basis for overturning a marital settlement agreement freely and voluntarily entered into”); see also BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (rejecting BMW’s appeal to set aside a judgment based on BMW’s failure to include a condition in its settlement offer). We therefore affirm the order under review.