In re Brinkman

In re Brinkman, FLWSUPP 2010BRIN
The decedent died in 2007, leaving no will, and no assets other than a potential medical malpractice/wrongful death suit.  The surviving spouse, along with the decedent's two adult daughters, were his only heirs.  The surviving spouse was appointed personal representative of the estate, and she hired a law firm on a contingency basis to represent the estate in the wrongful death litigation.  She also hired a different law firm to represent her in the probate estate.

The law firm representing the personal representative in the probate estate used a fee agreement which provided that they would be paid 3% of the estate.  It also provided that in cases where the personal representative pursues a claim or files a lawsuit, the attorneys fees would be calculated based on the net recovery of that lawsuit. 

The wrongful death suit settled for $750,000, with a net recovery of approximately $434,000.  The law firm handling the probate estate claimed it was entitled to 3% of that recovery.  The Court held that F.S. 733.6171(2) does not allow an attorney representing the personal representative with respect to the administration of the estate to base its fees on a recovery outside of the estate's statutory right to recovery in the wrongful death suit pursuant to F.S. 768.21(6), since the estate was also represented by attorneys who were litigating that claim. The court was not persuaded by the fact that at all times the law firm handling the estate administration knew about the wrongful death proceeding or that an estate proceeding was required for that wrongful death proceeding to occur.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Goodstein v. Goodstein ,  263 So.3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository. Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order. Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions a...
Read more

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Malleiro v. Mori , 182 So.3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) This case serves as a lesson in rarely used words buried in the Florida Probate Code.  The Court was asked to determine whether an unsigned notarial will executed in Argentina was a valid will under the Florida Probate Code.  The Court ultimately held that because the Argentine will was unsigned, even though it was a notarial will, it was a noncupative will prohibited by the Florida Probate Code. The testator executed a valid will in New York distributing her real and personal property located in the United States.  Four months later, she executed a second will in Argentina.  The Argentine will was not executed with the usual formalities of American wills.  Instead, the testator orally pronounced her testamentary wishes to a notary who transcribed them in the presence of three witnesses.  The testator orally approved the typewritten will in the presence of the witnesses, and the notary signed and st...
Read more

Estate of McKenzie v. Hi Rise Crane, Inc.

  Estate of McKenzie through McIntosch v. Hi Rise Crane, Inc. , --- So.3d ---, 2021 WL 3672215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) The "relation back doctrine" as provided in F.S. 733.601 provides that a personal representative's powers "relate back in time to give acts by the person appointed, occurring before appointment and beneficial to the estate, the same effect as those occurring after appointment." Here, the nominated personal representative filed a workman's compensation petition for benefits on behalf of her deceased brother prior to her appointment as personal representative. The Judge of Compensation Claims dismissed her petition because she was not the personal representative when she filed the petition. The Court reversed, relying on Cunningham v. Florida Dep't of Child & Fams. , which held that, "it follows, from the fact that the plaintiff can amend to reflect his capacity as personal representative, that claims which are properly recoverable by...
Read more