Goldman v. Estate of Goldman

Goldman v. Estate of Goldman, --- So.3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)

This decision deals with an award of attorney's fees and costs against a party without a finding of bad faith by the trial court.  An attorney, in her capacity as Guardian Ad Litem, inadvertently disclosed confidential financial and medical information of the ward to the ward's nieces and nephews.  The trial court held a hearing regarding sanctions against the nieces and nephews, and found that the file had been sent inadvertently and not in bad faith, but still imposed sanctions against them for obtaining the confidential information in violation of the court's confidentiality order.

The nephews and nieces appealed because the trial court did not make an express finding of bad faith conduct.  The Court agreed with the nephews and nieces that such a finding was necessary.  It cited the Moakley v. Smallwood decision, which held that the trial court has the inherent authority to impose fees against an attorney for bad faith conduct, but that the sanction must be based on an express finding of bad faith conduct and must be supported by detailed factual findings.  Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So.2d 221, 226 (Fla. 2002).  The Court found that this requirement had been expanded to situations involving fees against a litigant as well as an attorney, and thus the trial court's failure to make specific findings regarding bad faith conduct as to each party or attorney against sanctions are to be imposed required reversal.

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

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell , --- So.3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) This decision involves an appeal of a trial court's order striking a claim as untimely. The claimant argued that his claim was timely because he was a reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with notice. The Court disagreed. The claimant argued that the estate should have known about his claim based on several conversations he had with the personal representative and the personal representative's attorneys. He was claiming an ownership interest in the decedent's real property because he paid for the property and paid the mortgage premiums over 20 years prior to the decedent's death for a 5 year period of time while he has in a relationship with the decedent. In his calls to the personal representative, the claimant apparently only mentioned that he had left some car parts in the garage and never said anything about an ownership interest in the property. He argued that he inquired, ...
Read more