McMullen v. Bennis, — So.3d —-, 2009 WL 2837426 (Fla. 3d DCA Sep 2, 2009)

In the linked-to case a will was being contested by a party claiming a stake to the estate as a “virtually adopted” heir. (For an excellent explanation of what the virtual adoption doctrine is and how it works, see Virtual Adoption: Not Just for Netizens [click here]).

If the will contestant in this case successfully set aside the will but lost on her virtual-adoption claim, she would still end up with nothing. Apparently hoping to avoid the expense and delay of a potentially meaningless will contest, the contestant asked the court to rule on her virtual adoption claim up front, prior to adjudicating the will contest. Makes sense to me; and apparently it made sense to the probate judge as well, because she granted that request and ruled in her favor on the virtual adoption claim. Bad idea, says the 3d DCA; here’s why:

The parties admit there is a will of record purportedly executed by the decedent, and that they are poised to engage in a contest over its validity if necessary. But, because they are of the opinion that obtaining a final determination on Bennis’ petition for determination of beneficiaries is less labor intensive for them and, by their reckoning, would be dispositive of the final distribution of estate assets, they asked the trial court to adjudicate the virtual adoption question before considering the validity of the will. The trial court acceded to the request.

Upon our review, we decline to accept the “reckoning” of the parties as to the ultimate distribution of the assets of this estate. Much can occur in a probate proceeding between any particular point in time and a final distribution order  .  .  .

* * * * *

In this case, the validity of the decedent’s will is unresolved. Whether Bennis is a virtually adopted daughter becomes material to the probate proceeding only if the decedent’s will is invalid. Consideration of the validity of the decedent’s will necessarily must be the court’s first order of business. If the court determines the will is invalid, Bennis then may proceed as she deems appropriate.

Order vacated without prejudice and case remanded for further proceedings.

Did the 3d DCA get this one right?

The basis for the 3d DCA’s ruling in this case appears to be its conclusion that the virtual-adoption question “becomes material to the probate proceeding only if the decedent’s will is invalid.” As explained in Virtual Adoption: Not Just for Netizens [click here], being someone’s “heir” has all sorts of implications in a probate proceeding:

“[V]irtual adoption is intended to put the virtually adopted person in the same position as that of a person naturally born of or formally adopted by the decedent as that relationship is affected by the intestacy statutes. Such a status would necessarily include not just inheritance rights, but [all] the rights, duties, and obligations inherent in administering the estate of an intestate parent, particularly the right to preference in appointment as personal representative under the Florida Probate Code.”

In short, a the probate judge’s virtual adoption ruling in this case was NOT material “only if the decedent’s will is invalid.” Until the will challenge is resolved, the court’s ruling is potentially material to ALL aspects of probating this estate. This point was either missed by the 3d DCA or simply not reflected in its opinion.

Brian R. Dolan and Joel M. Commerford have just published an interesting article entitled Virtual Adoption: Not Just for Netizens. Virtual adoption’s one of those probate doctrines that most people don’t know about, but it can be very useful in the right circumstances. So what is “virtual adoption”?

Despite its regrettable name, virtual adoption is not a type of adoption practiced in the family law arena via the Internet. Rather, virtual adoption is a concept lying in the probate court, which allows for the virtually adopted child, who otherwise would be a stranger to his or her virtual adoptive parent’s estate, to take under the estate as a natural or legally adopted child. Prior to 1943, the Florida Supreme Court “found little sympathy” for the doctrine of virtual adoption. However, in considering the authorities cited in the seminal case, the court “became more impressed with its soundness” and recognized the doctrine in Florida.

No Florida court has specifically defined the term “virtual adoption.” A good working definition, however, is “a court given name to a status arising from and created by contract where one takes and agrees to legally adopt the child of another but fails to do so.” While the term has not been specifically defined, the elements of virtual adoption are well established in Florida. [In In re the Heirs of Hodge, 470 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)], the Fifth District Court of Appeal concisely listed the following elements necessary to establish an effective virtual adoption:

  1. An agreement [to adopt] between the natural and adoptive parents;
  2. Performance by the natural parent[s] of the child in giving up custody;
  3. Performance by the child by living in the home of the adoptive parents;
  4. Partial performance by the foster parents in taking the child into the home and treating the child as their child; and
  5. Intestacy of the foster parents.

All five elements must be present, and these elements must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Think Laterally: Virtual Adoption = Heir = PR?

The obvious, straight-line application of the virtual adoption doctrine is to establish a claim to an intestate share of an estate. If the authors had stopped there, they would have had a solid article, but not particularly noteworthy. So I was happy to see they went in a different direction; focusing on a less direct – but perhaps equally important – application of the doctrine.

Being someone’s “heir” has all sorts of implications in a probate proceeding; probably the most important from a litigation standpoint being how it plays into who gets appointed personal representative (“PR”). In probate litigation the significance of who’s appointed PR can’t be overstated. The PR can use estate funds to pay his lawyers, the other side has to pay his own way. This one factor alone can often mean the difference between victory and defeat. So yeah, this is a big deal.

And here’s how the authors link the virtual adoption doctrine to the question of who gets appointed PR:

It is a natural extension of the established principles that virtual adoption should also embrace the collateral issues of the appointment of personal representatives and other issues under the intestacy statutes. Florida courts have never addressed the question of whether virtual adoption confers upon the virtually adopted person eligibility to be appointed as personal representative of the estate. Close reading of the various authorities, however, suggests that virtual adoption should be extended to confer such eligibility upon the virtually adopted person.

The Third District Court of Appeal has stated that, “what can be enforced by such an action [virtual adoption] is the establishment of filiation where the child can be shown to have been virtually adopted.” As such, the virtually adopted child should be treated under the intestacy statutes as any other child of the decedent.

While scarce, courts have recognized applications of virtual adoption status to issues outside the immediate scope of the intestacy statutes. For instance, in Williams v. Dorrell, 714 So. 2d 574 (Fla 3d DCA 1998), the Third District Court of Appeal reasoned that a virtually adopted person was entitled to the rights of an heir under the homestead provisions of the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes, ruling that descent of homestead property inures to the benefit of a virtually adopted child in the same manner as to natural or legally adopted children of an intestate decedent. Though not at issue in that case, presumably the protection from claims of the decedent’s creditors adhering to homestead property would likewise inure to the benefit of a virtually adopted child. Moreover, Georgia has recognized the virtually adopted child’s right to file a caveat in a probate action to protect the virtually adopted child’s rights. The Georgia Supreme Court stated:

[a] person claiming an interest in the estate of a testatrix, by reason of a virtual adoption, has such an interest in the estate as will authorize him to file a caveat to the will of the testatrix, when by the probate of such will he will be deprived of such interest. A contrary holding would deny to a party at interest in the estate, other than as heir, an opportunity to attack the probate, and thereby as against such party make the probate conclusive, thus defeating his interest in the estate of the testatrix.

The Florida Probate Code provides that preference in appointment of personal representative in intestate estates be given to “[t]he heir nearest in degree.” It is indisputable that a person deemed to have been virtually adopted is an heir in the second degree (behind the surviving spouse) for inheritance purposes. As an heir, it is a natural adjunct, then, that a virtually adopted person would hold the same position as any other heir with regard to appointment as personal representative. The court’s reasoning in Dorrell supports this conclusion. Furthermore, the Florida Probate Code provides that the first priority (after the surviving spouse) is “the person selected by a majority in interest of the heirs.” …

Combining all these disparate parts into one cogent whole, then, it could reasonably be stated that virtual adoption is intended to put the virtually adopted person in the same position as that of a person naturally born of or formally adopted by the decedent as that relationship is affected by the intestacy statutes. Such a status would necessarily include not just inheritance rights, but the rights, duties, and obligations inherent in administering the estate of an intestate parent, particularly the right to preference in appointment as personal representative under the Florida Probate Code.

Littell v. Law Firm Of Trinkle, Moody, Swanson, Byrd and Colton, 2009 WL 2749666 (11th Cir.(Fla.) Sep 01, 2009)

The linked-to opinion is the culmination of litigation involving a “Joint Trust” created by a husband and wife in 1992 that has played itself out in two different courts for over 8 years.

Stage One: Probate Court Trust-Construction Action: Littell Loses

Stage one of the litigation was a trust-construction action before a probate judge in which the court ruled that the Joint Trust was NOT “amendable” after the first spouse died. This issue isn’t as simple as it sounds, as demonstrated in another joint-trust revocation case I wrote about earlier this year [click here].

In the trust-construction action the drafting estate planning attorney (Byrd) testified that he had been instructed to draft the Joint Trust in a way that would allow it to be amended after the first spouse’s death. In other words, based on the probate court’s ruling, he apparently admitted to a drafting mistake. The second estate planning attorney involved in the matter (Stuart) testified that she thought the Joint Trust was amendable, and advised her client accordingly. In other words, again based on the probate court’s ruling, she apparently admitted to having mistakenly interpreted the trust agreement. Both admissions are significant in light of the results of the second action.

Stage Two: Malpractice Action v. Estate Planning Attorneys: Littell Loses Again:

The linked-to opinion involves this second stage of the litigation. In this action Plaintiff Littell argued that if the Joint Trust agreement was NOT amendable, then he should be able to sue the estate planning attorneys for malpractice. The trial court judge ruled against him, dismissing his claims against both of the estate planning attorneys.

[1] Lack of Standing = No Claim v. Byrd:

The ruling that will probably be of most interest to Florida estate planners is this one. Here the court ruled that an heir that is NOT mentioned in the operative will or trust agreement (a “disinherited” heir), does NOT have standing as a third-party beneficiary to sue the estate planning attorney for malpractice.

Whether any heir ever has standing as a third-party beneficiary to sue an estate planning attorney for malpractice was unclear under Florida law, until the 4th DCA’s 2007 ruling in the Gunster case [click here]. But what if the heir is NOT a named beneficiary of the operative will or trust agreement, does he still have standing to sue? Earlier this year I wrote about a California appellate opinion that ruled there was NO standing in those cases [click here]. The 11th Circuit ruled the same way in this case, concluding that under Florida law a plaintiff that is NOT a named beneficiary of the operative will or trust agreement, does NOT have standing as a third-party beneficiary to sue the estate planning attorney for malpractice.

Applying [Florida] law to the case at hand, we conclude that Littell does not have third-party beneficiary standing to bring a malpractice action against Byrd and Trinkle Moody. Florida’s narrowly defined exception to the privity requirement limits an attorney’s professional liability to foreseeable plaintiffs, namely, to clients and to those persons that the client apparently intended to be third party beneficiaries of the attorney’s services. See Rosenstone, 560 So.2d at 1230 (limiting privity exception to “one who [the attorney] knows is the intended beneficiary of his services”) (emphasis added); Angel, Cohen & Rogovin, 512 So.2d at 193 (noting that attorney’s professional liability is limited to clients and to those who can demonstrate that the apparent intent of the client in engaging the services of the lawyer was to benefit that third-party); see also Machata v. Seidman & Seidman, 644 So.2d 114 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994), rev. denied, 654 So.2d 919 (Fla .1995) (liability of an accountant for negligence is expanded beyond persons in privity to include those persons the accountant knows intend to rely on the accountant’s opinion for a specific purpose).  .  .  .  In this case, Littell points to no evidence indicating that he was an apparent intended beneficiary of the services Byrd provided to the Hermans or that the Hermans engaged Byrd intending to benefit Littell. At best, Littell was only an incidental third-party beneficiary of Byrd’s services and the “Florida courts have refused to expand [the privity] exception to include incidental third-party beneficiaries.” Angel, Cohen & Rogovin, 512 So.2d at 194. [Because Littell was not named in the documents drafted by Byrd], Littell was not an apparent third-party beneficiary of Byrd’s services. For this reason, the district court properly found that Littell has no standing to bring a malpractice action against Byrd and Trinkle Moody.

[2] Do Over Ruling = No Claim v. Stuart: “Heads I win, tails you lose”

This is the leg of the case that must have driven the plaintiff (and his attorney) crazy. With respect to the malpractice claim against the second estate planning attorney (Stuart), the court ruled there was no claim because this court interpreted the Joint Trust exactly opposite to the way the same instrument had been interpreted by the probate court. In the probate court the plaintiff had lost because the judge concluded the Joint Trust was NOT amendable after the first spouse’s death. This time around the plaintiff lost – AGAIN – because the court concluded the Joint Trust WAS amendable after the first spouse’s death, so the estate planning attorney (Stuart) did nothing wrong; ergo: malpractice action dismissed.

Littell also asserts that the district court erred in finding that the Trust was amendable by the sole surviving settlor and that therefore Stuart and Gray Robinson were not negligent in executing amendments to the Trust.FN2

FN2. Although the probate court reached the opposite conclusion, the district court properly found that because Stuart and Gray Robinson were not parties in the probate case, the probate court’s decision has no preclusive effect in this case. See Albrecht v. State, 444 So.2d 8 (Fla.1984) (noting that issue preclusion applies only when the identical parties wish to relitigate issues that were actually litigated as necessary and material issues in a prior action).

Lesson learned? THINK “JOINDER OF PARTIES”

It’s unfair to second guess anyone after 8 years of litigation. Viewed in retrospect, no one is perfect; and perfection isn’t the standard we’re supposed to be judged by. However, looking forward, what lessons can trusts and estates litigators draw from this case? I was especially struck by the “heads I lose, tails you win” nature of this case. It’s OK for a judge to rule against you; smart, reasonable minds can disagree on how to interpret a trust agreement. It happens every day. But it’s not OK if two different judges rule in exactly opposite ways on the same trust agreement: and you lose no matter what.

One way to avoid the risk of inconsistent results among different judges adjudicating the same trust agreement is to make sure all related claims are tried in one lawsuit before the same judge. That way, no matter how the judge rules, everyone has to live with that ruling for all purposes. How do you do that? Florida’s joinder-of-parties rule. Under Fl. Civ. Pro. Rule 1.210(a), any person can be made a defendant who has or claims an interest adverse to the plaintiff and any person can, at any time, be made a party if that person’s presence is necessary or proper to a complete determination of the cause. If the same judge had adjudicated both the trust-construction action and the malpractice action, each side would have won one and lost one, but no one would have been stuck with the “heads I lose, tails you win” outcome the plaintiff walked away with in this case.

Listen to this post

As DNA testing becomes evermore widespread, Florida probate judges and practitioners alike can expect they’ll have to grapple with its implications with greater frequency.

For example, does DNA testing trump a prior paternity adjudication for purposes of intestate succession? In a 2007 opinion (Glover v. Miller) the 4th DCA said “NO” [click here]. (For an excellent discussion of DNA testing within the context of divorce proceedings see The Presumptions of Privette: Have They Perished with the Coming of Daniel and Disestablishment of Paternity.)

Doe v. Doe, — So.3d —-, 2009 WL 2841190 (Fla. 2d DCA Sep 04, 2009):

This time around – in this case of first impression – the question was whether DNA testing trumps traditional trust construction doctrine as applied to the phrase “descendants by blood.”

Believe it or not, for trust construction purposes someone can be your “blood relative,” even if DNA testing proves conclusively that you’re not biologically related to that person. Does this make sense? Yes, if your primary goal is to figure out the settlor’s testamentary intent at the time he signed his trust agreement. When construing a trust agreement it’s what was going on in the settlor’s head at the time he signed the document that matters most, not the empirically-verifiable facts in existence years later at the time the trust is being administered.

Two points addressed in the linked-to opinion warrant special attention.

1.  Do you think we can get a court order compelling a DNA test?

If you’re a probate lawyer and you haven’t had someone ask you this question yet, just wait, sooner or later someone will. And when they do, consider the strong hint given by the 2d DCA on how it would have ruled if someone had given it a chance to block the DNA test compelled in this case:

FN3. Catherine did not seek review by certiorari of the circuit court order directing her to submit to further DNA testing [under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360(a)]. Moreover, Catherine has not challenged the propriety of that order on this appeal. In any event, the testing order is moot. The testing has already occurred, and the results have been disclosed to the parties and to the court. For these reasons, we express no opinion on the propriety of the circuit court’s order for compulsory DNA testing. Cf. Contino v. Estate of Contino, 714 So.2d 1210, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that the personal representative of an intestate estate was not entitled to an order for the DNA testing of a child born into wedlock to establish whether the decedent was the child’s biological father).

2.  The “lessons of legal history” vs. DNA testing: Who wins?

In the linked-to opinion the trustees argued that if DNA testing proves that a person isn’t biologically related to the settlor, then she’s automatically disqualified from being considered one of the settlor’s “descendants by blood.” The 2d DCA does a great job of deconstructing that argument and coming to its apparently counter-intuitive conclusion in a way that should make sense to most trusts and estates lawyers.

The Trustees’ argument overlooks the meaning of the term “descendants by blood” and similar expressions as they have been used historically in wills and trusts in connection with the limitation of class gifts to persons related to the testator, the settlor, or some other designated person. Before the advent of modern genetic testing in the last twenty to thirty years, a challenge such as the one the Trustees have brought against Catherine-challenging the paternity of a child born in wedlock-would have been all but unthinkable. The legitimacy of a child born in wedlock is one of the strongest rebuttable presumptions known to the law. See Eldridge v. Eldridge, 16 So.2d 163, 163-64 (Fla.1944). In addition to facing a very high level of proof, the challenger would have found it difficult-if not impossible-to assemble the evidence necessary to prove such a claim. See Chris W. Altenbernd, Quasi-Marital Children: The Common Law’s Failure in Privette and Daniel Calls for Statutory Reform, 26 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. 219, 236 (1999). Only with the relatively recent development of genetic testing has the proof necessary to overcome the presumption of legitimacy become generally available. Id. at 237; Mary R. Anderlik, Disestablishment Suits: What Hath Science Wrought?, 4 J. Center for Fams., Child. & Cts. 3, 3-4 (2003).

Of course, the use of terms such as “descendants by blood” and similar expressions to limit class gifts began long before genetic testing became available. Such expressions are terms of art that have been traditionally used-sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully-to limit class gifts to persons related to the testator, settlor, or other designated person by a blood relationship and thus to exclude adopted persons. See, e.g., Papin v. Papin, 445 S.W.2d 350, 352-53 (Mo.1969) (holding that a class gift in a trust to “heirs at law by blood related to the grantor” excluded adopted persons); Fifth Third Bank v. Crosley, 669 N.E.2d 904, 909 (Ohio Ct.Com.Pl.1996) (holding that a trust provision limiting a class gift to the “lawful issue of the blood of the Trustor” excluded adoptees); Trust Agreement of Cyrus D. Jones Dated June 24, 1926, 607 A.2d 265, 270 (Pa.Super.Ct.1992) (holding that a trust agreement limiting a class gift to the “lawful issue of the blood” did not exclude adopted descendants). In the modern era, the trend has been away from a focus on blood relationships and toward treating the adoptee as a full member of his or her adoptive family. See Jan Ellen Rein, Relatives by Blood, Adoption, and Association: Who Should Get What and Why, 37 Vand. L.Rev. 711, 713-17 (1984). However, modern legal forms continue to recognize the traditional use of the “blood” restriction by defining “descendants” to include persons whose relationship to the designated ancestor is by blood or by adoption. See, e.g., 20A Am.Jur. Legal Forms 2d § 266:53, p. 370 (2009) (“Whenever used in this Will, the word “descendants” or the word “issue” shall mean legitimate descendants of whatever degree, including descendants both by blood and by adoption.”). Thus, by expanding the definition of “descendants” to include adoptees, adopted persons may be included within the terms of class gifts to descendants.

The Trustees’ expansive reading of Article XVIII’s restriction of the trusts’ class gifts to “descendants by blood” as requiring genetic testing to determine membership in the class ignores the lessons of legal history. Because the blood restriction came to be used in wills and trusts to exclude adoptees from class gifts long before genetic testing became available, the meaning of these old expressions cannot reasonably be extended beyond the exclusion of adopted persons to disqualify descendants such as Catherine who were not adopted and who would otherwise qualify as a beneficiary of the class gifts but who happen to lack the requisite genetic profile from the settlors.FN5 Thus a proper interpretation of the limitation of the trusts’ class gifts to “only children and descendants by blood” does not support the Trustees’ argument.FN6

To put it in a nutshell, the trusts’ Article XVIII appears in legal instruments, not in a technical paper on genetics. The phrase “descendants by blood” is a legal term of art, not a scientific one. As a legitimate child of one of the settlors’ sons, Catherine qualifies as one of the settlors’ “descendants by blood.”

*     *     *     *     *

Because Catherine is the legitimate child of her legal father, Chester III, she is, by operation of law, the “blood issue” of Chester III. It follows that she is a “descendant by blood” of the settlors and is within the class of persons entitled to take under the trusts. To paraphrase what another court said in a case involving similar facts, Catherine cannot be Chester III’s daughter for only some purposes. See In re Trust Created by Agreement Dated Dec. 20, 1961, 765 A.2d 746, 759 (N.J.2001). Thus the circuit court erred as a matter of law in determining that Catherine was not a “descendant by blood” of Chester Jr. and Eleanor.

Tax issues loom large in trusts & estates litigation, especially when the estate tax is in play. So on Monday, September 14, 2009, I’m teaching a 90-Minute National Teleconference entitled Tax Issues in Trust and Probate Litigation [click here for seminar materials].

In this seminar we’ll examine how an awareness of the tax issues lurking in the background of almost every contested proceeding can be leveraged to maximum advantage for all concerned.  Click here to sign up.  I hope you can join me.

Bonus Materials:

The written materials for this seminar [click here] include a copy of the Mediation Settlement Agreement discussed in Private Letter Ruling 200844010, in which the IRS ruled that if you split a single “QTIP” marital trust into five separate sub-trusts and then terminate just one of those sub-trusts, IRC § 2519 is triggered only with respect to the terminated sub-trust [see also here for related commentary on this case/ terminating a marital trust that’s been QTIP’d]. The significance of this state of the art sample settlement agreement is that it provides an excellent real-life example of how to elegantly navigate all the issues you need to both anticipate and deal with in any settlement agreement involving a termination of a marital trust that’s been QTIP’d. This sample document alone is worth the price of admission.

If you’ve never been in a probate courtroom, you might expect to walk in and see a judge sitting on a raised dais wearing a black rob. In real life (at least in Miami-Dade and Broward County Florida) your average probate courtroom is a good-sized office (otherwise known as the judge’s “chambers”) with everyone – including the judge – wearing a business suit and sitting around a long rectangular conference-room table. Which doesn’t mean the quality of the process is diminished, it’s just not what you’re used to seeing on TV.

Bench Trials: Good Advice for Lawyers

It’s also a fact of life that non-jury bench trials rarely get much attention in professional journals (and forget about the popular press). So I was happy to see an excellent piece in the August 2009 edition of the ABA Journal discussing the virtues of bench trials, which was also packed with good advice for lawyers involved in bench trials: When the Judge Is the Jury.

“It is essential for the only juror in the case—as well as everyone else—to actually watch an honest witness testify on direct and a dishonest one squirm during a powerful cross,” said Standwell.

“The best way to do that is to hold the trial in a good-size conference room around a large, oval table. Every­thing—from oral testimony to handling electronic demonstrative evidence—is easier. What’s more, everybody sees everybody else through the whole trial.

“And one of the biggest advantages over the traditional courtroom is that the lawyers get to ‘read the jury’ all through the case. And since the judge can—and often will—ask questions, you’re always aware of what’s on the jury’s mind,” said Standwell.

“The conference room setting also helps you be a better cross-examiner,” said Angus. “You’re not strutting around and posturing in front of an audience of 12 jurors, trying out those nasty bits of sarcasm on the wit­ness. You’re doing what you ought to do on cross-exam—telling ‘the rest of the story,’ what was left out of direct—with short, leading questions that give the wit­ness no wiggle room for evasive or misleading answers.”

“Another thing,” said Standwell. “The conference room setting also has an important effect on the dynamics of expert testimony.”

“Even with world-famous scientists, economists, doctors and physicists, modern formal courtroom practice often turns the most fascinating expert testimony into sesquipedalian tergiversation,” said the judge. (Later, my 15-year-old daughter told me this means “incomprehensible, evasive large words.”)

“For my money,” said Standwell, “the more you can get your experts to explain economics, physics and medicine in plain English—the way the late Carl Sagan made simple sense out of intergalactic space—the better you will serve your case.

“The formal pageantry of 12 jurors, the clerks, bailiffs and court reporters, two or three sets of lawyers and a black-robed judge drives most experts back to the safety of the home cave—which for them is the world of incomprehensible jargon.

“A judge wearing a business suit instead of a robe in a conference room with everyone seated around an oval table goes a long way to make the whole process more human.

The decedent at the heart of this probate battle, Konstantinos “Gus” Boulis, was a Greek immigrant and self-made millionaire who had started as a dishwasher in Canada and ended up in Florida, where he built an empire of restaurants, hotels and cruise ships used for offshore casino gambling. His 2001 gangland-style murder was allegedly linked to the $147.5 million sale of his company, SunCruz Casinos, to a partnership including disgraced Republican über lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Apparently Boulis wasn’t very fond of his wife: he completely cut her out of his estate. Lucky for her Boulis died a Florida resident, so she was able to claim a 30% share of his estate under F.S. § 732.201. That’s the good news. The bad news is that she may have to fork over close to half of her share in estate taxes.

Estate Tax Allocation:

In large estates the elephant in the room is always: “who’s going to pay the estate tax?” Considering that the top marginal estate tax rate is 45%, whose share of the estate gets used to pay this tax bill is a huge big deal. For example, if Boulis’s widow was awarded a $10 million elective share, how the estate-tax allocation question is answered could mean the difference between her walking away with $10 million or $6.5 million!

Usually zero estate taxes are allocated to a widow’s elective share because of the unlimited estate-tax marital deduction. However, Boulis’s widow wasn’t a U.S. citizen, so the normal rules don’t apply. But even for non-citizens, it’s pretty easy to avoid paying any estate tax by creating a qualified domestic trust or “QDOT” to hold the widow’s share of the estate. For reasons not explained by the 4th DCA, this hasn’t happened in this case.

Boulis v. Blackburn, — So.3d —-, 2009 WL 2382358 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 05, 2009)

Having failed to dodge the estate-tax bullet by relying on the federal tax code provisions governing QDOTs, Boulis’s widow fell back on two state-level statutory-construction arguments involving F.S. 733.817, Florida’s estate-tax allocation statute.

[1]  Is an elective share ever liable for estate taxes?

Because elective-share assets going to a surviving spouse almost never trigger any estate tax, F.S. 733.817 doesn’t have a specific clause addressing those rare instances where a tax is triggered. Boulis’s widow argued this omission means taxes are NEVER allocated to elective share assets. Wrong answer says the 4th DCA, here’s why:

Appellant argues that certain probate code sections relieve her elective share of any liability for estate taxes. Section 733.817, Florida Statutes (2000), governs the apportionment of estate taxes. Subsections (5)(a), (5)(b), and (5)(c) apply to the apportionment of taxes on property passing under the decedent’s will, property passing under the terms of any trust created in the decedent’s will and homestead property, respectively.

*     *     *

“The purpose of section 733.817 is to ensure that all estate and inheritance taxes are shared on a ratable basis by the beneficiaries receiving the property subject to those taxes.” Tarbox v. Palmer, 564 So.2d 1106, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As appellant is not entitled to the marital deduction on her elective share, then that elective share is subject to tax. The net tax on an elective share is not apportioned under paragraphs (5)(a), (5)(b), or (5)(c), and it is not otherwise excluded. Therefore, the net tax attributable to the elective share is apportionable under section 733.817(5)(f).

[2]  But what if the decedent waived the normal tax allocations rules?

Boulis’s widow then argued that even if her share of the estate was taxable, her husband’s will trumped application of the Florida tax allocation statute because it directed that the payment of taxes attributable to property NOT passing under his will (such as her elective share) must be paid from property passing under his will (read: tax everyone else but the widow). This allocation argument has a long and storied past here in Florida. Unfortunately for Boulis’s widow, by now it’s pretty well settled that the language in the will has to be extremely specific for this argument to work. In this case it wasn’t, so she lost this argument as well.

In his will, the decedent “direct[s][his] Personal Representative to pay out of the property which would otherwise become a part of the Residuary Estate, all estate, inheritance, transfer and succession taxes, including interest and penalties thereon, which may be lawfully assessed by reason of my death.” Appellant argues that pursuant to section 733.817(5)(h)1., Florida Statutes (2000), this provision of the will directs appellees to pay the taxes on the elective share out of the residuary estate. The trial court held that section 733.817(5)(h)4., Florida Statutes, is the applicable provision and, under that section, the decedent has not effectively directed the payment of taxes attributable to property not passing under the governing instrument from property passing under the governing instrument.

Section 733.817(5)(h), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:

(h)1. To be effective as a direction for payment of tax in a manner different from that provided in this section, the governing instrument must direct that the tax be paid from assets that pass pursuant to that governing instrument, except as provided in this section.

*     *     *

4. For a direction in a governing instrument to be effective to direct payment of taxes attributable to property not passing under the governing instrument from property passing under the governing instrument, the governing instrument must expressly refer to this section, or expressly indicate that the property passing under the governing instrument is to bear the burden of taxation for property not passing under the governing instrument. A direction in the governing instrument to the effect that all taxes are to be paid from property passing under the governing instrument whether attributable to property passing under the governing instrument or otherwise shall be effective to direct the payment from property passing under the governing instrument of taxes attributable to property not passing under the governing instrument.

In In re Estate of McClaran, 811 So.2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), the Second District addressed the issue of whether the direction in the decedent’s will was effective under section 733.817(5)(h) to override the statutory method of apportionment of estate taxes. McClaran’s will provided in pertinent part:

My personal representative shall pay from the residue of my estate … estate and inheritance taxes assessed by reason of my death, except that the amount, if any, by which the estate and inheritance taxes shall be increased as a result of the inclusion of property in which I may have a qualifying income interest for life or over which I may have a power of appointment shall be paid by the person holding or receiving that property.

Id. at 800 (emphasis in original).

*     *     *

Just as in McClaran, the direction in the decedent’s will does not include an express indication that the property passing under the will is to bear the burden of taxation for property not passing under the will.

Aguilar v. Aguilar, — So.3d —-, 2009 WL 2169133 (Fla. 2d DCA Jul 22, 2009)

If you’re going to contest a will one of the first questions you have to ask yourself is “am I too late?”

If the will you want to contest has already been admitted to probate and your client’s been served with a “notice of administration,” F.S. 733.212 says you’ve only got 3 months to object. But the mechanics of objecting to a will involve two basic steps: [1] filing your objections with the court and [2] serving “formal” notice of your objections on the opposing party.

In the linked-to opinion the will contestant (the decedent’s wife) filed her objections within the 3-month limitations period, but didn’t get around to serving formal notice of her objection on the other side until about 4 months later. So was she too late? According to the probate judge the answer was yes, so Wife’s objections were dismissed with prejudice. Wrong answer says the 2d DCA. Here’s why:

The Wife contends that the statute, section 733.212(3), Florida Statutes (2006), requires only the “filing” of objections within three months and that her failure to serve her motion by formal notice within the three-month deadline is not fatal to her claim. She further contends that even if service by formal notice were required within the three-month period, the Daughters waived the requirement by engaging in protracted litigation before raising their objection to the service. The Daughters respond that section 733.212 is implemented by Florida Probate Rules 5.025, 5.040, and 5.041(d), which require that an objection be served with formal notice by the three-month deadline.

Section 733.212(3) provides:

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

(Emphasis added.)

The Wife’s motion was an adversary proceeding as defined in rule 5.025(a), and therefore she was required to serve formal notice pursuant to rule 5.025(d)(1). Rule 5.040 sets out the requirements for serving formal notice. It provides in subsection (a)(3)(A) that formal notice shall be served “by sending a copy by any commercial delivery service requiring a signed receipt or by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt.” Rule 5.041(d) governs filing and provides that “[a]ll original papers shall be filed either before service or immediately thereafter.”

None of these rules contain a time requirement for serving formal notice. Further, the trial court’s conclusion that section 733.212(3) requires service of formal notice within three months is erroneous because the statute requires only the “filing” of objections within three months after the notice of administration is served. It does not require both filing and service of formal notice within the three-month period. It is undisputed that the Wife’s motion was timely filed. We therefore reverse the order dismissing the Wife’s motion and direct that it be reinstated.

Rust v. Brown, — So.3d —-, 2009 WL 2031288 (Fla. 4th DCA Jul 15, 2009)

It’s not unusual for courts to enter orders simply “granting” a summary judgment motion. Which may be gratifying to the winning side, but technically speaking, the order is meaningless. Why? Because it hasn’t actually entered judgment for or against a party. Which means it’s a non-final, non-appealable order. Here’s how the 4th DCA explained the rule in Shroff v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 570 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990):

With great reluctance, this appeal is dismissed on the authority of White Palms of Palm Beach v. Fox, 525 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), and Russell v. Russell, 507 So.2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Once again we caution trial judges and attorneys alike that this court lacks jurisdiction over an order granting a motion for summary judgment, when that order does not contain the requisite words of finality indicating that the complaint is dismissed.

Unfortunately, the parties (and the judge) in the linked-to probate case overlooked this bit of sage advice. Here again the 4th DCA was presented with an order that simply “granted” a summary judgment motion, and again the 4th DCA sent everyone packing with instructions to try to get it right the second time around:

The court entered an order granting the surviving spouse’s motion for summary judgment, giving rise to this appeal.

Rule 9.110(a)(2) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure provides for “review of orders entered in probate and guardianship matters that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code.” “Significantly, the committee note explains that the 1996 amendment to the rule ‘does not abrogate prior case law holding that a party’s right of appeal arises when there is a termination of judicial labor on the issue involved as to that party.'” Klingensmith v. Ferd & Gladys Alpert Jewish Family, 997 So.2d 436, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Walters v. Edwards, 700 So.2d 434, 435 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)).

An order merely granting a motion for summary judgment is not a final order because it does not enter judgment for or against a party.White Palms of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Fox, 525 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), abrogated on other grounds by Dobrick v. Discovery Cruises, Inc., 581 So.2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

The esoteric tax and property-law issues at play in most will contests or contested probate proceedings are so complex that it’s become common practice in Florida to use experienced trusts and estates lawyers as expert witnesses in these trials.

But is it really proper to call a lawyer-expert to explain a body of law (no matter how complex) to the judge? Isn’t the judge supposed to “know” the law? And if there’s any explaining to do, isn’t that what counsel for the parties is supposed to do?

That was the question the trial judge was asked to rule upon recently in the trial of Anthony Marshall, the son of the philanthropist Brooke Astor. Here’s how the judge’s ruling was reported in Former Milbank Chairman to Testify as Wills Expert in Astor Trial:

Three months into the criminal trial of socialite Brooke Astor’s son, Anthony Marshall, and the lawyer he hired who allegedly helped him loot his mother’s estate, the presiding judge has cleared the way for a trusts and estate expert to testify for the prosecution.

Alexander D. Forger, the former chairman of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, can give expert testimony on the “patterns” of Astor’s wills and codicils and the “professional practice standards” for trusts and estates attorneys, Acting Supreme Court Justice A. Kirke Bartley Jr. ruled Wednesday from the bench.

However, the judge barred Forger from testifying on issues that could prove critical to the prosecution’s case: whether Henry Christensen III, who represented Astor for more than 20 years, and G. Warren Whitaker, the attorney who drafted a hotly disputed Jan. 12, 2004, codicil to the socialite’s 2002 will, violated ethical standards.

By the way, if you ever find yourself arguing either side of this issue, you’ll want to read the submissions of the prosecution and Marshall regarding Forger’s appearance. Both do a good job of articulating the classic arguments for and against allowing lawyers to testify as expert witnesses.

But is it OK under Florida law to qualify lawyers as “experts” to explain trusts and estates law issues to a judge? Like I said, it’s so commonly done, you’ll rarely if ever find yourself actually having to litigate the issue. But if you do find yourself having to argue this point, a case you’ll want to read – regardless of what side of the argument you may be on – is Guy v. Kight, 431 So.2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), which provides as follows:

Section 90.703, Florida Statutes (1981) provides that “[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” Additionally, it has been held that there is no error in permitting an attorney to testify as an expert witness at trial as to substantive and procedural Florida law. Warwick, Paul & Warwick v. Dotter, 190 So.2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966).

Another source you should review if you’re thinking about serving as an expert witness yourself or engaging another attorney as an expert witness is ABA Formal Ethics Opinon 97-407 (Lawyer as Expert Witness or Expert Consultant).