Summary
The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reverses an order surcharging a former successor personal representative $300,000 for allegedly causing the loss of a proposed sale of estate property. The court holds that the surcharge must reflect the estate's actual loss, and the record did not establish that the estate suffered a $300,000 loss because it still owned the property and there was no evidence that the property lacked value or could not be sold.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether competent, substantial evidence supported a $300,000 surcharge against the prior successor personal representative.
- Whether a surcharge for breach of fiduciary duty may exceed the estate's actual loss or place the estate in a better position than it would have occupied absent the breach.
Holdings
- The $300,000 surcharge was unsupported because the evidence did not establish that the estate sustained an actual loss of $300,000.
- The surcharge could not be awarded in the full amount of the withdrawn offer absent proof that the estate actually lost that amount.
Key quotations
“But a surcharge award must reflect the actual loss caused by the breach and may not place the estate “in a better position than [it] would have occupied without the breach of fiduciary duty.”” (at 2)
Factual background
The estate's primary asset was a parcel of real property. While serving as personal representative, Kim Law obtained a $300,000 offer to purchase the property, but the sale was delayed and the prospective buyer withdrew. The estate continued to own the property, and the record contained no evidence that it lacked value, could not be sold, or had otherwise sustained a $300,000 loss.
Procedural history
An interested party petitioned the circuit court to surcharge Kim Law, alleging that Law breached her fiduciary duty and caused the loss of a proposed sale of estate property. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court granted the petition for the full $300,000 amount of the withdrawn purchase offer. Law appealed, arguing that competent, substantial evidence did not establish that the estate suffered damages in that amount.
Remand instructions
Further proceedings consistent with the opinion.