Summary
A successor personal representative has the same powers as the original representative under Florida Statute § 733.614, and thus has standing to sue the prior representative’s attorney for legal malpractice on behalf of the estate without establishing privity. The court also held that a claim for disgorgement of excessive attorney’s fees is part of estate administration, but the circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear it and may, in its discretion, consolidate it with the malpractice claim on remand.
Holdings
- A successor personal representative has the same power and duty as the original personal representative, including the right to bring a malpractice suit against the prior representative's attorney, by operation of section 733.614, Florida Statutes.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding it more appropriate for the disgorgement claim to be heard in the probate proceedings, but it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim in the civil case on remand.
Questions Presented
- Whether a successor personal representative has standing to bring a legal malpractice action against the attorney hired by the prior personal representative.
- Whether the trial court properly dismissed the claim for disgorgement of attorney's fees when the estate proceedings were still pending.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (11)
- Petty v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 80 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 2012)(cited to state proposition that plain statutory language controls)
- Srygley v. Capital Plaza, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)(cited for same proposition)
- In re A.G., 40 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)(cited for same proposition)
- Sessions v. Willard, 172 So. 242 (Fla. 1937)(cited for proposition that personal representative must pursue assets held by former personal representative)
- Onofrio v. Johnston & Sasser, P.A., 782 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(compared)
- In re Winston, 610 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(cited for proposition that probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over fee review)
- Maugeri v. Plourde, 396 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(cited for proposition that circuit judges share jurisdiction)
- Fort v. Fort, 951 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)(cited for same proposition)
- In the Interest of Peterson, 364 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)(cited in Fort v. Fort for same proposition)
- Weaver v. Hotchkiss, 972 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)(accord)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.