Florida Probate Litigation Lawyer Blog

Serving as Personal Representative of an Estate: What is a “Reasonably Ascertainable” Creditor?

December 10, 2012 | by Bart Chepenik

When probating an estate (i.e., distributing a deceased person’s assets), a personal representative is responsible for seeing that the process is carried out in accordance with the deceased person’s wishes and state law. Some very common questions often arise in this context: What exactly are the duties of a personal representative? What steps is a personal representative required to take in order to properly fulfill those duties.

The Florida Probate Code dictates the rights, duties, and responsibilities of being a personal representative of an estate. One of the many obligations that comes with the role of personal representative is the duty to notify creditors of the death of a debtor. This gives creditors the opportunity to satisfy the debt from the estate. Once the creditors are notified, they have a certain period of time to file a claim against the estate. Florida Statute § 733.2121(3)(a) says that “[t]he personal representative shall promptly make a diligent search to determine the names and addresses of creditors of the decedent who are reasonably ascertainable, even if the claims are unmatured, contingent, or unliquidated, and shall promptly serve a copy of the notice on those creditors. Impracticable and extended searches are not required.” Depending on the type of creditor, the statute of limitations to file a claim is either two years from the notice for “readily ascertainable” creditors or within a three month window for creditors who are not “reasonably ascertainable.” What does all of this mean? When does a search go from reasonable to impracticable? What is “readily ascertainable”?
Continue Reading

The Digital Age and Wills, Social Media and Licenses After Death.

December 3, 2012 | by Bart Chepenik

People generally know that the purpose of a will is to facilitate the orderly distribution of assets after a person’s death. Therefore, it logically flows that assets that expire upon death do not need to be handled by a will. They expire. However, the concept of ownership has changed drastically over the past decade. Digital media, social media, and the internet in general have changed how people think they own things and how they actually own things. Would you be surprised to know that you don’t actually own the album you just bought from iTunes? You do not own it in the same way as the CD you bought from a music store. Your rights are limited when you are buying things online. You are buying the digital rights to use a file rather than buying the actual file. Today, most digital licenses are individually owned, non-transferrable, and expire on death. Good examples of these are email accounts, such as Gmail, social media accounts, such as Facebook, and media accounts, such as iTunes and Amazon. Ownership has changed from owning a physical, tangible object to owning a license for use of something with limited rights. You do not have a CD to play wherever you want anymore; you have a digital file that can only be played on certain devices. Usually devices that are made by the company you bought the file from – such as Apple limiting the use of its media files to its products. At the end of the day, you still paid the same amount of money for a digital album as you would have for a tangible CD. So, how is it fair that these licenses expire on death and are non-transferrable? Shouldn’t these files still be considered an asset? And shouldn’t there be a way to protect them?

The operative word in a lot of these digital user agreements is is “individually.” Files you buy on iTunes are owned individually, cannot be transferred, and expire on death. So, you spend thousands of dollars on a digital music collection and instead of being able to bequeath your prized collection of CDs to your favorite grandchild, you lose your collection when you die. Read the user agreements for digital media and see for yourself. However, there are ways to solve this problem. One solution is owning the files by an entity other than an individual. What about digital assets owned by a business or a trust?
Continue Reading

Supreme Court Denies Survivor Benefits to Posthumously-Conceived Florida Twins

November 26, 2012 | by Bart Chepenik

As technology continues to develop, its impact is seen in many areas of law. In today’s world, natural conception is not the only way to conceive a child. Often times, a parent may choose to have a child through in-vitro fertilization, even after their significant other has passed. However, under common law, a posthumously-conceived child (a child conceived after the death of the father) is always considered a non-marital child because marriage ends at the death of one of the partners. Specifically, under Florida law, “a child conceived from the eggs or sperm of a person or persons who died before the transfer of their eggs, sperm, or pre-embryos to a woman’s body shall not be eligible for a claim against the decedent’s estate unless the child has been provided for by the decedent’s will.” Fla. Stat. § 742.17. This statute means that a posthumously-conceived child may not state a claim against his father’s estate, unless that child is deliberately named in the father’s will.

In a recent United States Supreme Court opinion, Astrue v. Capato, a mother conceived and gave birth to twins after the father had passed away from esophageal cancer. The Capatos naturally conceived one son, but the couple wanted that son to have siblings. Before Mr. Capato entered chemotherapy, he had his semen frozen because the doctors explained that the chemotherapy could force him to become infertile. A few months before he died, Mr. Capato executed a will that named the son he had with Ms. Capato and two children from a previous marriage as beneficiaries. The will failed to mention his unborn children as beneficiaries. After her husband’s death, Ms. Capato began receiving in-vitro fertilization treatments, using her husband’s previously frozen sperm. The process was successful, and eventually, she gave birth to twins.
Continue Reading

Tortious Interference with Inheritance

November 21, 2012 | by Bart Chepenik

It is a classic scenario – the evil step-mother taking everything when her husband dies even though his children were expecting an inheritance. What do you do if someone swoops your inheritance, or your expectation of an inheritance, out from under you? Florida recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with an inheritance or expectancy of such. See In re Estate of Hatten, 880 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004). This means that if an inheritance or the expectancy of an inheritance is diverted, destroyed, or something of the like by a third party, there is a cause of action by which the person who did not receive the expected inheritance may be compensated.

Tortious interference with inheritance is defined as, “[o]ne who by fraud, duress or other tortious means intentionally prevents another from receiving from a third person an inheritance or gift that he would otherwise have received is subject to liability to the other for loss of the inheritance or gift.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 774B. There can also be many related causes of action to a tortuous interference with inheritance claim, such as breach of contract, undue influence, and unjust enrichment. A person who has been the victim of such wrongful conduct may bring an action for a constructive trust or damages.
Continue Reading

Revocable Trusts

November 16, 2012 | by Bart Chepenik

There are many instances in which a trust can be terminated, e.g., when the trust ceases to be economically efficient to administer or when the trust has been created as a result of fraud, duress, or undue influence. Recently, in Florida, more individuals have been creating revocable trusts. Floridians often choose this type of trust to avoid probate and to keep their private affairs out of the public eye in a probate proceeding. But when is a trust revocable? Who can revoke the trust? What steps must be taken and procedures followed to ensure that the trust is revocable?

One of the key distinguishing features of a revocable trust, as opposed to an irrevocable trust, is control. A settlor has control not just to revoke the trust, but to alter the trust as well. For example, the settlor of a revocable trust may add or remove beneficiaries of the trust during the settlor’s life and may also change the property that is owned by the trust. A major downside of this control is that the trust’s assets are easier for creditors of the settlor or of the beneficiaries to reach. Whereas, with regard to an irrevocable trust, the settlor does not have control once the trust is established, but the assets of the trust are better protected from the settlor’s creditors, and, depending on how the trust is structured, those assets may also be better protected from creditors of the beneficiaries.
Continue Reading

Foreign Persons and Florida’s Homestead Exemption

November 10, 2012 | by Bart Chepenik

Just how far does Florida Constitution’s homestead ad valorem tax exemption extend? Recently, the Florida Supreme Court decided this issue in Garcia v. Andonie, 65 So.3d 515 (2011). In Andonie, the Court held that if the resident children of a non-resident reside on property owned by the non-resident, the property may qualify for the ad valorem tax exemption. Andonie involved Honduran parents who resided in a Florida condominium with their children. The children were United States citizens, but the parents were not. The parents did not have a legal right to remain indefinitely in the United States. Under Florida law, every person who has the legal or benificial title to real property in the state and who resides thereon as his or her permanent residence, or the permanent residence of his or her self and their dependants, is entitled to an exemption. Fla.Stats. §196.031(1). Under the Florida Constitution, however, every person who has the legal or equitable title to real estate and maintains thereon the permanent residence of the owner, or another legally or naturally dependent upon the owner, shall be exempt from taxation thereon. Fla. Const. Article VII, §6(a).

The property appraiser argued that the parents must be residing indefinitely in order for the property to qualify under the Florida statute. Therefore, because the parents could not, as a matter of law, indefinitely reside on the property, the property must not be subject to the exemption. Nonetheless, the Court rejected the property appraiser’s argument and interpreted the Florida Statute as adding another layer to the constitutional provision.
Continue Reading

Removing a Personal Representative

November 5, 2012 | by Bart Chepenik

What happens when the personal representative of an estate is not performing his or her duties or is not acting in the best interest of the estate? The Florida Probate Code lists causes for removal of a Personal representative. In addition to a physical or mental incapacity that would prevent a personal representative from performing his or her duties, the following are other circumstances and conditions under which the pesonal representative of an estate may be validly removed:

Failure to comply with a court order;
Failure to account for the sale of property or provide an inventory;
Wasting the assets of an estate;
Failure to post bond;
Conviction of a felony;
Insolvency of a corporate personal representative;
Except for a surviving spouse, acquiring a conflict of interest that may or will interfere with the administration of the estate;
Revocation of the will naming the person as personal representative;
Removal of Florida as a Domicile, unless domicile is not a requirement; or
If the personal representative would not now be entitle to appointment.

Any interested person may petition for the removal of a personal representative. The petition must allege an interest and facts comprising a statutory ground for removal. Fla. Prob. R. 5.440. Furthermore, the removal of a personal representative appointed by a decedent is a last resort. See In re Estate of Murphy’s, 336 So.2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Continue Reading

The Impact of FATCA on Foreign Trusts and Estates

October 22, 2012 | by Bart Chepenik

In 2010, congress passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) after a series of high-profile tax evasion cases. The main purpose of FATCA is to force foreign financial institutions to comply with reporting requirements of the Internal Revenue Service and curb non-compliance. However, FATCA will have new reporting requirements for individuals, as well. Classically, any United States citizen with an interest in a foreign bank account was required to file an FBAR form disclosing their interest in any foreign bank account with their regular tax return. FATCA has broadened filing requirements “to all specified foreign financial assets” held by “specified individuals” with the implementation of section 6038D to the Internal Revenue Service. The new requirement seeks to ensure that the Internal Revenue Service has all potential information to prevent assets that could produce taxable income from being concealed in foreign jurisdictions. For section 6038D purposes, a specified individual is a United States citizen, a resident alien of the United States (as determined under section I.R.C. 7701(b) and §§301.7701(b)-1 through I.R.C 301.7701(b)-9), or a nonresident alien who has elected under section 6013(g) or (h) to be taxed as a United States resident. Under FATCA, specified individuals with a specified financial interest must file an information form (form 8938) with the Internal Revenue Service. Section 6038D may also apply, at the discretion of the Treasury Department, to domestic entities formed for the purpose of holding a specified foreign financial asset under I.R.C. 6038D(f).
Continue Reading

Trust Decanting

October 15, 2012 | by Bart Chepenik

Trusts are an important tool of estate planning for many reasons, one of which is the tax benefits associated with holding assets in a trust. Trusts are routinely set up as a planning tool and contain various different provisions about how and when trust assets are distributed to the qualified beneficiaries of the trust. Trustees can have different ranges of power depending on the terms of the trust instrument, and the extent of the discretion afforded to the trustee dictates what they are able to do with the trust assets. Trustees with a discretionary power to distribute trust assets may do just that – distribute the assets to the qualified beneficiaries. Trustees with a special power of appointment have greater rights and can have the right to invade the principal of the trust. Giving a trustee a power of appointment, especially an absolute power of appointment, can allow the trustee to distribute assets in ways that can be extremely advantageous to the qualified beneficiaries.

Can a trustee of a trust distribute the principal of a trust to a new trust that may have different terms? The answer is yes, provided certain conditions are met. When a trustee with the discretion to distribute the principal of the trust uses that discretion to distribute the principal into a new trust, it is called “decanting the trust.” Trust decanting is a means of planning that helps beneficiaries retain the tax benefits of a trust. The reason decanting is allowed is that if the trustee, through his power of appointment, has the ability to distribute property to the beneficiaries or for their benefit, then that power of appointment should allow the trustee to distribute property into a second trust for the benefit of the qualified beneficiaries.
Continue Reading

Pet Trusts

October 5, 2012 | by Bart Chepenik

When planning their estates, most people consider provisions that take into account their family and friends, but people often fail to make arrangements for loved ones that fall somewhere in between: their pets. Dogs, cats, horses, birds, reptiles, rodents, and amphibious friends can also be provided for in estate documents. Florida Statute 736.0408 allows individuals to create trusts specifically to care for animals that the owner predeceases. The statute specifically allows individuals to:

Provide for the care of an animal or animals alive during the settlor’s lifetime;
Appoint an individual to enforce the trust for the animal(s);
Ensure that money set aside for the animal(s) will only be used for that purpose.