Bookman v. Davidson

Bookman v. Davidson, --- So.3d --- (2014), 2014 WL 1772707

This case centered around the rights of a successor personal representative to (1) sue the attorney who represented the original personal representative for malpractice and (2) seek disgorgement of fees paid to that attorney in a separate civil case.  For purposes of discussion, the initial personal representative will be referred to as PR1 and her successor will be referred to as PR2.  

PR1 served as personal representative of the estate for approximately 3 years. During those three years, she engaged the legal services of an attorney.  In total, the attorney received $195,000 in fees from the estate.  

When PR2 was appointed as successor personal representative, he filed suit against both PR1 and her attorney, alleging that PR1, with her attorney's guidance, had improperly disclaimed or transferred assets out of the estate that could have been used to pay its creditors.  PR1 filed her affirmative defenses, which included the defense that her actions were done in reliance on the advice of legal counsel, and she filed a cross-claim against her attorney.

Malpractice Claim

The trial court held that as a matter of law, PR2 did not have standing against the attorney who represented PR1 in her administration of the estate.  The Appellate Court, noting that the question of whether a successor personal representative may bring a cause of action for legal malpractice against an attorney hired by his predecessor was a question of first impression, found that this was not a question of privity, and rather should be governed by the relevant statutes of the Florida Probate Code.  It then walked through the Probate Code to ultimately find that PR2 had the right to sue PR1's attorney for malpractice:

          (1)  F.S. 733.602(1) grants the personal representative broad general duties and requires the personal representative to act in the best interests of the estate and all interested persons, including creditors;

          (2)  To accommodate those broad general duties, F.S. 733.612 authorizes the personal representative to hire an attorney and prosecute lawsuits for the protection of the estate; and

          (3)  F.S. 733.614 provides that the powers granted to the original personal representative flow to the successor personal representative.

Thus, since PR1 had the authority to bring suit against her attorney for legal malpractice, by virtue of F.S. 733.614, PR2 had the same authority.

Disgorgement of Fees

The trial court also granted the attorney's motion to dismiss PR2's claims for disgorgement of attorney's fees, concluding that while PR2 had the right to pursue the claim, he should have done so in the estate proceedings.  The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision on principal, but held that the court could, in its discretion on remand, exercise its subject matter jurisdiction to hear that issue along with the other counts of the civil case.  Citing F.S. 733.6175(2), the Court noted that the Florida probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter of compensation, so it was "more appropriate" for this claim to be heard in the probate court.  However, the Court also pointed out that the trial court did not actually lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claim for disgorgement, since the "court" as defined in the Probate Code is the "circuit court" and thus F.S. 733.6175(2) does not preclude a circuit court of general jurisdiction from hearing, in a related civil suit, the issue of compensation of a person who was employed by the personal representative of an estate as part of the estate's administration.

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