McCormick v. Cox

McCormick v. Cox, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1723b (Fla. 3d DCA 2103):

Here, McCormick, an attorney, prepared two trusts which owned a single asset- 100 acres in Massachusetts. At the time of the decedent/settlor's death, the property operated as a nine-hole golf course.  Following the decedent's death, McCormick arranged for an appraisal of the property as of his date of death.  The appraiser reported a fair market value of the property, as an operating golf course, of $2,500,000.  McCormick's billing records indicated that almost immediately McCormick began work to convert the property from a golf course to residential property.  Yet the appraisal he used on the decedent's estate tax return did not reflect this "highest and best use" of the property, nor did McCormick communicate with the beneficiaries about the value. The property ultimately sold to the Town of Lynnfield for $12,000,000.  To avoid capital gain tax, McCormick structured a like-kind exchange under section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code.  The beneficiaries supported the like-kind exchange, but did not waive their right to contest the initial under-valuing of the property.

Ultimately the trial court removed McCormick for breach of fiduciary duties, found that McCormick and his law firm breached their fiduciary duties as attorney's for the trusts, surcharged the trustee and his law firm $2,146,812 in expenses incurred due to their undervaluation of the property, found the legal fees were unreasonable and required disgorgement of $1,348,000 in attorney's and trustee's fees.

The Appellate Court upheld McCormick's removal because the beneficiaries introduced competent substantial evidence of his breaches.  They used an experienced probate and trust attorney as an expert, they presented evidence that McCormick was required to post bond but did not, McCormick conceded that he did not provide the beneficiaries with annual accountings, and he took a seven-figure trustee fee from trust funds.  The Court also upheld the surcharge and disgorgement.

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 stamped the will.  The testator
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, &quo
Read more