Whether certain probate-related orders are or are not subject to appeal is a topic that comes up with some frequency on this blog [click here]. In an effort to add greater certainty to this area of the law, the Probate and Trust Litigation Committee has been working on an appellate rule project. Click here for the latest draft of the proposed appellate rule which is making its way through the appellate rules committee. The current proposal gives probate orders their own separate rule similar to family law orders. If you have any comments to this latest draft, please forward them directly to the sub-committee members working on this important project: Bill Hennessey, Tom Karr, and Sean Kelley.

Veteran Florida probate litigator Amy Beller was kind enough to direct me to Private Letter Ruling 200844010, in which the IRS ruled that if you split a single marital trust into five separate sub-trusts and then terminate just one of those sub-trusts, IRC § 2519 would be triggered only with respect to the terminated sub-trust. The significance of this PLR is that it provides an excellent summary of the transfer-tax consequences you need to both anticipate and deal with any time you terminate a marital trust that’s been QTIP’d, while also explaining how to manage those tax issues by elegantly leveraging the flexibility built into Florida’s new Trust Code.

Here’s a key excerpt from the linked-to PLR:

In the present case, Spouse has a qualifying income interest for life in Marital Trust, and Child 1, Child 2, Child 3, Child 4, and Child 5 are the presumptive remainder beneficiaries. Pursuant to Settlement Agreement, Marital Trust will be divided into five trusts: specifically, four Surviving Settlement Trusts and Child 1’s Settlement Trust. Under State Statute 1, each of the five trusts will be treated as a separate trust for all purposes from the date on which the severance is effective. After the division, Spouse will have a qualifying income interest for life, and Child 2, Child 3, Child 4, and Child 5 will be the remaindermen of the Surviving Settlement Trusts. Child 1’s Settlement Trust will be terminated. Accordingly, based on the facts submitted and representations made, we conclude that the division of Marital Trust into five trusts and the subsequent termination of Child 1’s Settlement Trust pursuant to Settlement Agreement will not be deemed to be a transfer under § 2519 of any property interest, or interest in, the Surviving Settlement Trusts, and therefore, such division and termination will not give rise to any gift tax liability with respect to any property of, or interest in, any of the Surviving Settlement Trusts.  

Amy represented the surviving spouse/income beneficiary of the marital trust, so she deserves a good amount of the credit for this PLR.  By the way, South Florida tax lawyer Charles Rubin also wrote about this PLR here on his blog Rubin on Tax.

Wintter & Associates, P.A. v. Kanowsky, — So.2d —-, 2008 WL 4643358 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 22, 2008)

If all you’re asking a probate court to do is exercise its in rem jurisdiction over the assets of a trust by awarding you your attorney’s fees from trust assets, then you don’t have to plead this claim up front and can ask for these fees at any time by filing a motion under F.S. 736.1004.

On the other hand, if you’re asking a probate court to reach into someone’s pocket and make that person pay your fees with his own personal funds, that requires the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the target of your claim, which triggers an entirely different pleading regime governed by the requirements of Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla.1991). The different pleading requirements only make sense if you realize they rest on entirely different jurisdictional foundations: in rem v. in personam jurisdiction.

In the linked-to opinion the probate court ordered the trustee and its attorneys to personally pay for a trust beneficiary’s legal fees arising out of a contested trust accounting proceeding. Based on the following surprisingly frank observation by the 4th DCA in footnote 2 of its opinion, I’m guessing the probate court’s order wasn’t exactly the picture of clarity:

FN2. We admit that we do not know on what legal basis fees were awarded to the beneficiary and against the law firm and trustee, nor does anything in the record elucidate this for us.

That’s too bad, because I’m guessing the probate court entered its order on the assumption it was operating on the basis of its in rem jurisdiction over the trust’s assets, and thus the hightened pleading requirements applicable to personal judgments simply didn’t apply. Anyway, that’s the clear implication of the probate court’s order, and here’s how the 4th DCA explained its rationale for reversal:

The law firm claims that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees where they were not pled as required by Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla.1991), which held that a claim for attorneys fees, whether based on statute or contract, must be pled. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the claim. Id. at 837-38. The Stockman court based its decision on the need for appropriate notice and to prevent unfair surprise. Id. at 837. Further, the existence or non-existence of a motion for attorneys fees may play an important role in decisions whether to pursue a claim, dismiss it, or settle. Id. An exception to this rule applies [w]here a party has notice that an opponent claims entitlement to attorneys fees, and by its conduct recognizes or acquiesces to that claim or otherwise fails to object to the failure to plead entitlement,…. Id. at 838.

The exception to the Stockman rule does not apply, as neither the law firm nor the trustee waived its objection to the beneficiary’s failure to plead entitlement to attorney’s fees. The conduct of the law firm and trustee did not demonstrate acquiescence to the claim for fees. To the contrary, in the trustees own written closing argument the law firm objected to the request for attorneys fees on the grounds that it was not pled. At all times they objected to the assessment of attorneys fees.

Were these fees requested from the estate, Stockman might not apply. See In re Estate of Paris, 699 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). However, as noted, the beneficiary requested fees from the lawyer and trustee.

The beneficiary did not request attorney’s fees in her objection to the final accounting. Admittedly her objection was not a pleading in the traditional sense, as it was not a complaint or answer. However, it was the first document she filed with the court in this action, and she did not request attorney’s fees until her written closing argument. She requested fees not from the estate, but directly from the trustee and his attorney. Certainly, we think that the Stockman rationales of due process notice and prevention of surprise require her to reveal her intention to make such a claim.

In a companion case, Mercer v. Kanowsky, — So.3d —-, 2009 WL 2168810 (Fla. 4th DCA Jul 22, 2009), the 4th DCA came to the same conclusions with respect to the fee order assessed against the trustee personally, and reversed that order as well.

Listen to this post

Sometimes it pays to step back and review the basics, like the difference between in rem jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction in probate proceedings, or the finality of settlement agreements no matter what courtroom you happen to be in. Both issues come up with some frequency in contested probate proceedings, which is why I was happy to see them both addressed squarely in the linked-to opinion.

Case Study

Brindle v. Brindle, — So.2d —-, 2008 WL 4722746 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct 29, 2008)

When the personal representative of this estate realized he didn’t have enough cash to pay his administrative expenses, he figured why not make his brother (a 50% beneficiary of the estate) pick up half the tab. Sounds reasonable, which is probably why the probate court went along with the idea. Wrong answer said the 3d DCA, and here’s why:

We reverse the order on appeal for further proceedings. The administration of an estate in probate is an in rem proceeding. § 731.105, Fla. Stat. (2006); Hoffman v. Murphy ( In re Estate of Williamson), 95 So.2d 244 (Fla.1956). Beneficiaries are not ordinarily “parties” to the proceeding. Payette v. Clark, 559 So.2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also Sean Kelly & Shane Kelly, Litigation Under the Florida Probate Code § 1.29 (6th ed. 2006) (“Generally, in a probate administration, the personal representative is the only person over whom the court has in personam jurisdiction.”). Thus, absent consent or statutory authority, a probate court may not apportion the expenses of an estate among the beneficiaries of an estate personally. See Dayton v. Conger, 448 So.2d 609, 611-12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Dourado v. Chousa, 604 So.2d 864, 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); cf. § 733.106(3)-(4), Fla. Stat. (2006) (allowing, in proper circumstances, attorneys fees and costs to be awarded from interests in an estate). There is no agreement or statute applicable to this case by which a personal award of estate expenses against Richard and Charles can be sustained.FN1 The record in this case indicates the probate judge ordered Richard and Charles to split the expenses of the estate as a matter of convenience.

FN1. Although the circuit judge in the civil division had the authority to apportion the costs of that proceeding personally individually among the litigants, § 733.106(1), Fla. Stat. (2006); Dayton, 448 So.2d at 612, the parties, with the approval of the personal representative, resolved those costs in their settlement agreement.

Finality of Settlement Agreements

No one’s perfect, but it you cut a deal that goes south on you, most of us know you can’t ask for a re-play. You suck it up and move on. Well that’s not what happened in this case. In this case the probate court decided a settlement agreement signed by the litigants two years ago didn’t make sense anymore, so the judge tweeked it a bit. Again, may have sounded like a reasonable “solomaic” solution to a dispute between two brothers disputing their mother’s estate, but it was bad law, so says the 3d DCA:

Finally, neither division of the circuit court possessed the authority to set aside the terms of the settlement agreement for any purpose. The agreement had been approved and compliance ordered by the civil division of the circuit court almost two years before, with jurisdiction retained only “[as] necessary to enforce the Settlement Agreement.” All the facts pertaining to the existence and amount of the expenses needed to be paid by the estate were known or knowable to the personal representative when he embarked upon the distribution of estate assets-more than half to himself-pursuant to the settlement agreement. His argument that “it is no longer equitable that the [order] should have prospective application” within the meaning of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5) is not supported. See Hensel v. Hensel, 276 So.2d 227, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (“[T]he equities spoken of in ground No. 5 of [Rule 1.540(b) ] are those which come to fruition [a]fter a final judgment ….”); accord Baker v. Baker, 920 So.2d 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Gregory v. Connor, 591 So.2d 974, 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

As a matter of law, an ethics violation isn’t the same as committing malpractice, but as a practical matter, the two are almost always interconnected. For me, the significance of this fact is that ethics rules can be your best friend. They help you identify future landmines before they blow up on you and take protective measures.

A tricky ethics issue most estate planners contend with on a daily basis (whether they’re aware of it or not) is the conflict of interests inherent to jointly representing married couples and/or parents and their children in estate planning. The best way to get your arms around this ethics minefield is to read the Florida Bar’s Advisory Opinion 95-4, and two excellent follow up Florida Bar Journal articles entitled Joint Representation of Spouses in Estate Planning: The Saga of Advisory Opinion 95-4 and Multiple Representation in Estate Planning: Beyond Advisory Opinion 95-4, Part 2.

Allegations of conflict of interests are at the heart of an estate-planning malpractice suit currently being prosecuted against one of the U.S.’s largest firms claiming “tens of million of dollars in damages.” Yes, even the big boys can step in it from time to time. As reported in Trial Begins in Malpractice Case Against Orrick, the firm is being sued by multimillionaire businesswoman Fritzi Benesch for allegedly favoring her daughter’s interests over hers in the course of its estate planning for the family. Here’s an excerpt, note all the references to conflicts of interest:

Benesch, 86, wants tens of millions of dollars in damages to repay the amount of stock she said she was misled into giving to her daughter, Valli, whose last name is now Tandler, and Valli’s husband, Robert, over the years.

The Benesches hired Hoisington in 1977. By the time he retired in 1999, he had helped Fritzi and Ernest Benesch make numerous stock transactions that gave the Tandlers control of the company.

But attorney Jonathan Bass argued Wednesday that Fritzi Benesch never intended that to happen.

“What this case is about is a law firm favoring one set of clients over another,” he said. “They were getting richer as my client was getting lesser.”

Bass, a partner at Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, seized on a document Hoisington prepared in 1996 to make the case that Orrick’s representation of both the Benesches and the Tandlers was a conflict of interest the firm tried to hide.

Hoisington had been asked by Benesch’s younger daughter, Connie, to help plan her estate and wrote a memo to the entire family, saying that “there may come a time when the disposition of property” creates a conflict, and so he must decline to represent any of them.

But in a deposition video played by Bass, Hoisington said he never sent the letter, because Robert Tandler told him it was “a bit insulting.”

“You will learn during this trial there is no exception to lawyers’ ethics that falls under ‘I was insulted,'” Bass said.

Orrick was loyal to the Tandlers because they could get more legal fees from the couple that, unlike Fritzi Benesch, now controlled the company, he said.

There’s nothing like the threat of a multimillion dollar lawsuit to focus the mind. And now that I’ve got you thinking about intrafamily conflicts of interest in estate planning, here’s how the issue was addressed in Multiple Representation in Estate Planning: Beyond Advisory Opinion 95-4, Part 2:

Beyond representation of married couples, Advisory Opinion 95-4 has significance with respect to situations in which a lawyer or law firm may also represent other family members in estate planning and other personal matters. It is commonplace for estate planning attorneys to represent entire families — parents as well as adult children (and sometimes their spouses). Advisory Opinion 95-4 does not disturb the estate planning attorney’s ability to take on such an expanded representation role in harmonious family situations. The estate planning attorney must be careful, however, to address conflicts of interest and confidentiality concerns among the different individuals within larger family groups. Some situations will present conflicts of interest and require the clients’ informed consent. For example, a closely held family business in which both parents and children participate as shareholders, directors, officers, and employees may be expected to present various difficult long-term estate planning issues concerning matters in which several family members have materially different interests. The attorney should be careful to make clear his or her responsibilities to different family members concerning sharing of confidential information. Some families may wish all material information to be shared among the several family units. Other families may wish for estate planning within each family unit to remain confidential and be handled as separate representations. When a law firm also is handling other legal work for a family, such as corporate representation of a family business, the estate planning attorney’s ethical responsibilities may be further complicated by interrelated corporate matters. Similar to the difficulties encountered with a separate representation of husband and wife, an attorney engaged in separate representations of different family units may be faced with serious practical difficulties associated with compartmentalizing the information pertaining to each separate representation.

If you’re looking for more background information on this case, click here for a copy of the brief submitted to the San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant; and click here for the ABA Journal’s take on the case.

Brundage v. Bank of America, Trustee, — So.2d —-, 2008 WL 4722970 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 29, 2008)

Incapacitated Settlor of Revocable Trust:

Florida’s Trust Code is clear, while a trust is revocable, the duties of the trustee are owed exclusively to the settlor [F.S. 736.0603]. Equally important, a trustee will not be held responsible for actions consented to by the settlor of a revocable trust [736.1012]. But what happens if the revocable trust’s settlor becomes mentally incapacitated? That’s the most interesting issue addressed in the linked-to opinion.

In this case the successor co-trustees of a revocable trust were sued by the trust’s remainder beneficiaries following the settlor’s death.  Prior to her death, a doctor had examined the settlor and concluded that she was not competent to manage her affairs.  The trial court dismissed the complaint against the successor trustees on the grounds that they didn’t owe the remainder beneficiaries any duties during the settlor’s life (which is when the alleged wrongful conduct took place). Wrong answer said the 4th DCA, for the following reason:

As settlor of her own revocable trust of which she was the sole beneficiary until her death, Dorothy reserved to herself the sole power to change beneficiaries or revoke her trust at any time. “[T]he beneficiaries of [the] trust other than [the settler] … do not come into possession of any of the trust property until the event of [the settlor’s] death, and even this interest is contingent upon her not exercising her power to revoke. Since she is the sole beneficiary of the trust during her lifetime, she has the absolute right to call the trust to an end and distribute the trust property in any way she wishes.” Fla. Nat’l Bank of Palm Beach County v. Genova, 460 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla.1984) (emphasis omitted). The interest of the Brundages did not vest until Dorothy’s death. See In re Johnson’s Estate, 397 So.2d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It follows that during the settlor/beneficiary’s lifetime, a trustee owes a fiduciary duty to the settlor/beneficiary and not the remainder beneficiaries, who not only have no vested interest but whose contingent interest may be divested by the settlor prior to her death.

We have found no case which enforces on a trustee a duty owed to a contingent beneficiary of a revocable trust. However, once the interest of the contingent beneficiary vests upon the death of the settlor, the beneficiary may sue for breach of a duty that the trustee owed to the settlor/beneficiary which was breached during the lifetime of the settlor and subsequently affects the interest of the vested beneficiary. Smith v. Bank of Clearwater, 479 So.2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), illustrates this principle. In Smith the court held that a contingent remainderman of a trust, whose interest vested with the death of the lifetime beneficiary, had standing to sue for mismanagement of trust assets during the lifetime of the income beneficiary, because such mismanagement diminished the value of the trust assets to which the remainderman was entitled. The trustee owed the lifetime beneficiary the duty to properly manage the assets of the trust, and a breach of that duty could be enforced by the remainderman. Cf. Siegel v. Novak, 920 So.2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (applying New York law and reaching a similar result). 

How could the successor trustees have avoided this trap?

My idea: focus on obtaining informed consent for the trustee’s actions in spite of the settlor’s apparent mental incapacity. One way to do that in this context is through the appointment of a guardian of the property for the settlor. Once you have a court-appointed guardian, you’ve put in place the foundation for informed consent. Building on that foundation, any trust accounting you send the guardian will then bind the settlor/ward, and if the trustees want to be extra safe, they can demand that the guardian sign consents on behalf of the settlor/ward for any out-of-the-ordinary estate planning actions involving the revocable trust [F.S. 736.0303(1), F.S. 736.0813(3)]. If the defendant trustees in this case had coupled these protective measures with a trust-accounting "limitations notice" triggering the shortened 6-month statute of limitations period [F.S. 736.1008(2)], my guess is that we wouldn’t be reading about them in the linked-to opinion.

How does a stock split affect a specific bequest of stock?

Stock splits, mergers, consolidations, etc. have been causing trusts-and-estates lawyers and their clients headaches for generations, certainly more than enough time to develop a body of law dealing with that issue. Here’s how the 4th DCA summarized Florida common law on this point, which has been codified in F.S. 736.1107:

Florida follows the general rule that where a will bequeaths stock to a beneficiary and the stock splits, because the split is a mere change in form and not in substance, a beneficiary is entitled to the shares generated by stock splits that occur between the date of execution and demise. See In re Vail’s Estate, 67 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla.1953). Where the stock devise made in the will is no longer in the estate at the time of the testators death, the gift is considered adeemed. In re Estate of Walters, 700 So.2d 434, 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). For securities, however, this issue is controlled by [F.S. 736.1107]. That statute codifies the rule of ademption and provides that gifts of securities are limited to the securities owned by the trust at the time of death:

Change in securities; accessions; non-ademption

A gift of specific securities, rather than their equivalent value, shall entitle the beneficiary only to:

(1) As much of the gift securities of the same issuer held by the trust estate at the time of the occurrence of the event entitling the beneficiary to distribution.

§ 736.1107, Fla. Stat. As the trust did not hold any more than 54,000 shares of AHP stock on the date of Dorothy’s death, the event entitling the beneficiaries to the distribution, the Brundages cannot claim a greater share. They argue that the court should have considered Dorothy’s intent with respect to the distribution of the stock before ruling on the legal effect of the transfer. The statute, however, does not require or allow for an inquiry into the intent of the testator. It creates a clear rule of ademption where the trust does not hold the securities at the date of death.

Donkersloot v. Donkersloot, — So.2d —-, 2008 WL 4647415 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct 22, 2008)

Civil Procedure Rule 1.525 governs the mechanics of attorney’s fee motions in general commercial litigation.  Here’s what the rule says:

Any party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys’ fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment, including a judgment of dismissal, or the service of a notice of voluntary dismissal.

There’s been confusion for some time as to how exactly this general rule should apply (if at all) within the unique context of a contested probate or trust proceeding. In an effort to address this problem a subcommittee of the Florida Bar’s Probate & Trust Litigation Committee composed of  Angela Adams, Laura Sundberg and Eric Virgil has been looking into what sort of legislative fixes could be adopted to provide clarity on the issue. Regardless of what comes of their efforts, the subcommittee’s latest written report is an excellent analysis of the rule as it applies (or should apply) in trust proceedings, and a great resource for any trusts-and-estates litigator confronted with a Rule 1.525 issue in real life [click here for a copy].

In light of this background the linked-to opinion is especially timely in that the 2d DCA seems to sanction application of Rule 1.525 in a contested trust proceeding.  According to the subcommittee’s report I previously mentioned, this would be the first time a Florida appellate court addresses the application of Rule 1.525 within the context of a trust proceeding. So you may want to remember this case for future reference.

Anyway, in this case the 2d DCA reversed a $195,000 attorneys fee judgment entered against two co-trustees because the fee motion had only sought fees against one of the co-trustees.  Because Rule 1.525 requires the filing of a fee motion as a predicate to a judgment for fees, this was reversible error.  Here’s how the 2d DCA explained its ruling:

Prior to the motion hearing, counsel for Mr. Donkersloot and Johannes Donkersloot stipulated that neither Mr. Donkersloot nor his counsel needed to be present. Mr. Donkersloot’s counsel attended the hearing briefly, alerted the trial court to the stipulation, and, with leave of court, left the hearing. As the hearing progressed, Johannes Donkersloot, in response to trial court questioning, opined that the trial court “in equity” could award fees and costs against Mr. Donkersloot. Several months later, the trial court entered the amended final judgment awarding almost $195,000 in attorney’s fees, costs, and interest against Ms. Hall and Mr. Donkersloot, jointly and severally. On rehearing, the trial court rejected Mr. Donkersloot’s argument that the fees could not be imposed absent a proper motion. The trial court concluded that the award was warranted against Mr. Donkersloot as part of the “action in equity.”

Once a party pleads entitlement to attorney’s fees, proof of the fees may be presented after final judgment upon motion made within a reasonable time. Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835, 838 (Fla.1991). However, a trial court may not award relief that has not been requested nor tried by consent. Conidaris v. Cresswood Servs., Inc., 779 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that trial court was without authority to order owners to pay where equitable remedy was neither sought nor tried by consent).

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 dictates that a party seeking an award of attorney’s fees or costs must serve a motion requesting them within thirty days after entry of the judgment. Undisputedly, Johannes Donkersloot filed a timely motion. His motion did not seek fees from Mr. Donkersloot, nor was the motion served on him. Equally clear is the fact that, by stipulation, neither Mr. Donkersloot nor his counsel needed to be present at the hearing on attorney’s fees and costs; there was no trial by consent. Nor was the fee award an action that the trial court could make “in equity.” Equity does not breathe into a rule 1.525 motion unrequested relief. See generally Gulf Landings Ass’n, Inc. v. Hershberger, 845 So.2d 344, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that rule 1.525 is a bright-line rule and eschewing equitable exceptions). Accordingly, we reverse the award of attorney’s fees and costs as to Mr. Donkersloot.

Brown v. Miller, — So.2d —-, 2008 WL 4600940 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct 17, 2008)

In trust construction litigation the litigants are asking the judge to read the trust agreement and tell them what it means. In this type of litigation you often have the choice of allowing the court to rule on the trust agreement without taking any evidence or pressing for a trial on the merits. For example, if one side files a summary judgment motion, the other side can either: (1) object on the grounds that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute (i.e., argue a full-blown trial is needed) or (2) file its own counter summary judgment motion and let the trial court dispose of the case without the need of taking evidence.

Why might you opt for the first approach? Because you basically get a second bite at the apple if you lose before the trial court and appeal your case.  Why do you get a second bite at the apple? Because the standard of review on appeal in a case where the issue is limited to a trial court’s interpretation of a trust agreement without relying on extrinsic evidence is de novo, a Latin expression meaning "from the beginning," "afresh," "anew," "beginning again." In other words, the appellate court can read the document itself and come to its own conclusions, without any of the deference usually extended to findings of fact by trial courts.

As reflected in the following excerpt from the linked-to opinion, on appeal both sides agreed that the standard of review for this case was de novo.

Here, we agree with both parties that the interpretation of the Elinor Miller Trust documents is a question of law which is entitled to de novo review. See Fleck-Rubin v. Fleck, 933 So.2d 38, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Gallagher v. Dupont, 918 So.2d 342, 346 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Based on this appellate standard of review the losing side in this case was able to get the 5th DCA to take a fresh look at the contested trust agreement and deliver the win it didn’t get at trial. Here’s the contested trust-agreement clause and how the 5th DCA explained its ruling:

Contested trust agreement clause:

With respect to Trust “A-1” and Trust “A-2”, the Trustee shall pay quarterly or oftener, the entire net income derived from the trust estates to my husband, THOMAS W. MILLER, JR., so long as he shall live. In addition thereto, the Trustee shall pay to my husband, THOMAS W. MILLER, JR., such amounts from the principal of Trust “A-2” first and then from “A-1” after the exhaustion of “A-2”, as it deems necessary or advisable to provide liberally for his maintenance, health, and support in his accustomed manner of living, taking into account all of his other income and means of support known to the Trustee. The Trustee shall also pay to my husband such additional amounts of principal from Trust “A-2” as he may from time to time request….

Ruling:

Tom argues that Elinor only authorized transfers from Trust A-2 to “my husband.” Based on this argument, Tom contends that the transfer to the Bill Miller Trust was invalid because Elinor was “not married” to the Bill Miller Trust. Appellants respond that the Bill Miller Trust was an irrevocable trust and, accordingly, a conveyance to the Bill Miller Trust was equivalent to a transfer to Bill Miller. We agree with Appellants. It is undisputed that Bill maintained 100% control over the Bill Miller Trust assets. Furthermore, he had the right to end the trust at any time and thereby regain absolute ownership over the trust property. Florida Nat’l Bank of Palm Beach Co. v. Genova, 460 So.2d 895, 897 (Fla.1984). Thus, Bill had complete and unfettered access to the seven million dollars conveyed into his trust. In construing the provisions of a trust document, the cardinal rule is to give effect to the grantor’s intent, if possible. Knauer v. Barnett, 360 So.2d 399, 405 (Fla.1978). We believe that in authorizing transfers of Trust A-2 assets to her husband, Elinor clearly intended to permit transfers to an entity, such as an irrevocable trust, over which her husband retained complete control and the right to absolute ownership.

Urbanek v. Hopkins, — So.2d —-, 2008 WL 4489266 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 08, 2008)

What this case is really about is good lawyering. Miami probate litigator David H. Goldberg was hired to represent an 88-year old man suffering from Parkinson’s disease who had the misfortune of getting sucked into trust litigation he didn’t start and wasn’t a party to. The trustee/defendant in this case decided he needed to depose this poor guy, and come hell or high water, the Broward County probate judge adjudicating this matter was going to make sure he got his way.

I don’t know David Goldberg, but I think his work in this matter is a case study in effective advocacy and hope someone let’s him know I said so.

GOOD LAWYERING

  • Action:

The trustee/defendant in this case sought to take an oral deposition of August Urbanek, the 88-year old grantor of the irrevocable trust at the center of this case and the father of the trust-beneficiary who’s the plaintiff in this case.

  • Reaction:

David Goldberg filed an objection to the deposition on the grounds of age, health and privacy. In support of his objection, Goldberg filed a detailed affidavit from a physician specializing in neurology, having specific knowledge about the grantor-father’s condition concluding that the proposed deposition “would have detrimental effects on his Parkinson’s disease” and his health would be “severely impacted.”

It’s unclear from the linked-to opinion, but Goldberg apparently then also filed a motion to limit his client’s deposition to written questions.

  • Action:

In response to Goldberg’s motion, the trial court ordered the grantor-father and his physician to appear in court for a hearing on the grantor-father’s medical condition. In spite of the affidavit establishing danger to the grantor-father’s health from being forced to appear for a deposition, the judge nevertheless insisted that he come to court to testify. The judge rejected the alternative of first permitting only a written deposition. The judge also failed to ascertain how any testimony of the grantor-father might be relevant or lead to relevant evidence.

  • Reaction:

Goldberg immediately filed a motion seeking to have the hearing on his client’s medical condition conducted by telephone.  On the day of the hearing, Goldberg showed up in court without his client explaining, again, that if his client were required to be there in person his health would be “severely impacted.”

  • Action:

Apparently getting a little pissed off by now, the court ordered the grantor-father to submit to a compulsory medical examination by a physician chosen by the trustee within the next 30 days. At this point I think it’s important to say again that the grantor-father was not a party to this lawsuit. What happened to him could have conceivably happened to any bystander the parties to the lawsuit took it upon themselves to decide was a necessary witness: a lawyer says he wants to depose you, you say no for medical reasons and "presto," a judge is ordering you to surrender all of your personal privacy rights and submit yourself to a physical examination by a doctor not of your own choosing. Am I the only one who finds this entire situation more than a little scary?

  • Reaction:

Goldberg filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the 4th DCA to quash the trial court’s compulsory-medical-examination order.

THE LAW

Based on this record (again, the product of good lawyering), the 4th DCA made short work of the probate court’s order, quashing the directive requiring an examination of the grantor-father and requiring any deposition of the grantor-father to be limited initially to written deposition questions.  For future reference, here’s the legal reasoning underlying the 4th DCA’s ruling:

  • Probate court lacked authority to sanction witness:

The grantor-father was never served with a subpoena to appear, and the court made no finding of contempt for the personal failing of the grantor-father to attend the hearing. See Pevsner v. Frederick, 656 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (sanctions may not be imposed against nonparty for discovery violation in absence of finding of contempt). The affidavit of the personal physician raises substantial doubts as to whether the grantor-father was even physically capable of appearing personally for a deposition or in court. In the absence of contempt, under our Pevsner decision the trial court had no authority at this point to impose any sanctions on the grantor-father. Id.

  •  Grantor-father was entitled to a protective order based on his affidavit:

As to the compulsory medical examination (CME) of the grantor-father, the trial judge overlooked the burden placed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.360 on the proponent of a CME. Under the rule, the party seeking a CME must show that the person to be examined is a party in the litigation who has himself placed his physical condition at issue. The party seeking the CME must establish good cause for such an exam. Here the trial judge should have first required written deposition questions of the grantor-father. Before the trustee could thereafter show good cause for a CME, he would thereupon have to show why the results of the written deposition failed to furnish the relevant information sought from the grantor-father.

Without a showing of good cause, the burden never shifted to the grantor-father to sustain his objection to the CME, and the grantor-father was entitled to a protective order on the basis of his physician’s affidavit. See Olges, 856 So.2d at 11 (“But the question of protective rules or protective orders never arises and the burden never shifts unless the proponent of the examination shows good cause for an examination in the first place.”). “Good cause” for such an examination is not made on the basis of conclusory allegations or assertions of counsel. See Fruh v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv., 430 So.2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (two requirements of “in controversy” and “good cause” not met by mere conclusory allegations in pleadings, nor by mere relevance to case, but require affirmative showing by movant that each condition as to which examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy).

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

This is the first time I’ve ever done this, and I don’t plan on doing it again. However, because I laid it on so thick in favor of David Goldberg, I think it’s only fair to “even out” the coverage (if only to make sure David’s head doesn’t get too big). Below is a redacted version of a comment I received in response to this blog post.

But first an explanatory note. The linked-to opinion is only four pages long, and of those four pages the “facts of the case” represent only a few paragraphs. When the 4th DCA was drafting its opinion I assume they only focused on the facts most relevant to their legal conclusions. They have limited resources, and there’s no sense in making the opinion any longer than it needs to be. However, a byproduct of the court’s editing process is that most, if not all, of the “facts” supporting the losing side of this appeal probably didn’t make it into the published opinion. These facts may not have been directly relevant to the outcome of the appeal, but perhaps they would have cast a completely different light on this case, perhaps a light less favorable to the winning side. The point is I don’t know, and it’s simply impossible for me to read each side’s appellate briefs before writing about the published appellate opinion.

Note to self and blog readers: Remember there’s always multiple sides to every story, and the side that makes it into the published appellate decision may not always be the one closest to the "truth".

"What this case is really about is permitting an 88 year old man to be fleeced by his son who is involved in litigation over the irrevocable trust established by his father a number of years ago. By taking advantage of a vulnerable adult, the son is taking funds from his father outside of the trust and is now using that money to sue on the trust as well. The issue is whether the Court had the authority to order a independent medical examination of the 88 year old to give a deposition raised by the son and then the gentlemen’s counsel. I think your statements on the support of the decision are wrong and defeat the protection of vulnerable adults."

Again, if anyone has any other comments they’d like to share regarding this case, please post them on the comment page to this blog post.

Duncombe v. Adderly, — So.2d —-, 2008 WL 4489234 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 08, 2008)

If a beneficiary of an estate wants to get his attorney’s fees paid with assets of the estate, the statute he’ll have to hang his hat on is F.S. 733.106(3), which provides as follows:

(3) Any attorney who has rendered services to an estate may be awarded reasonable compensation from the estate.

The big question under this statute is always: what’s it mean to “render services” to an estate? In the linked-to case the probate court ruled that the winning side in litigation involving who gets appointed personal representative didn’t qualify for fees under F.S. 733.106(3). Wrong answer. Here’s how the 4th DCA summarized the law on this point in its reversal of the probate court’s order denying attorneys fees:

Duncombe . . . sought attorney’s fees incurred during these proceedings under section 733.106(3), which provides “any attorney who has rendered services to an estate may be awarded reasonable compensation from the estate.” The trial court believed that there had to be an enhancement in value or an advancement of the testator’s intent as set forth in the will, citing Samuels v. Estate of Ahern, 436 So.2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), . . .

We do not read Samuels that narrowly. Preventing the appointment of a personal representative named in the will is a basis for the award of attorney’s fees, Baumer v. Howard, 542 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), as is obtaining the removal of a representative, In re Estate of Eisenberg, 433 So.2d 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Appellees argue that we should affirm because no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated, but that is not the standard of review. Under the undisputed facts in this case, neither Adderly, a transferee of some of the property, nor her lawyer, could have served as personal representative if an interested party objected. The error in this case involved the interpretation of the words “benefit to the estate” in section 733.106(3). We review statutory interpretation de novo. San Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 983 So.2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Reversed.