Bookman v. Davidson Summary (136 So. 3d 1276, Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
In this Florida probate and legal malpractice case of first impression, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s summary judgment that denied standing to a successor personal representative (SPR) to sue an attorney for malpractice.
Key Facts Deborah E. Irby died, and Dana Ford was appointed initial personal representative (PR) of her estate in January 2007. Ford hired attorney Dale Davidson to assist with administration, and the estate paid him about $195,000 in fees. Ford resigned in February 2010, and Alan B. Bookman was appointed successor PR. Bookman sued Ford (for fiduciary breaches, mishandling assets, and seeking return of her fees) and Davidson (for malpractice via improper advice to Ford that allegedly harmed the estate by improper disclaimers/transfers of assets). The suit also sought partial disgorgement of Davidson’s fees as excessive.
Trial Court Ruling Davidson moved for summary judgment on the malpractice claim, arguing Bookman (as SPR) lacked standing due to no privity/attorney-client relationship with him (only with Ford). He also sought dismissal of the disgorgement claim, claiming exclusive probate court jurisdiction over fee reviews under Fla. Stat. § 733.6175(2). The Walton County Circuit Court granted summary judgment on malpractice (no standing/privity) and dismissed disgorgement (better suited to ongoing probate proceedings).
Appellate Holding The 1st DCA reversed the summary judgment on standing/malpractice:
- Under Fla. Stat. § 733.614, a successor PR has the same powers and duties as the original PR to complete estate administration, including prosecuting claims for the estate’s benefit.
- The original PR (Ford) could have sued Davidson for malpractice harming the estate, so those powers transferred to Bookman as SPR—he “stepped into the shoes” of Ford.
- No need to resolve traditional privity; statutory authority grants standing to pursue estate-protecting claims (citing §§ 733.612(20), 733.602, etc., emphasizing fiduciary duty to act in the estate’s best interests and pursue valuable claims/assets).
On disgorgement:
- Affirmed the dismissal in principle—the probate court is the more appropriate forum for fee reasonableness reviews (§ 733.6175(2) places such proceedings in estate administration).
- But clarified the circuit court (general jurisdiction) is not precluded from hearing it in a related civil suit; on remand, the trial court has discretion to consolidate or hear it alongside other claims for efficiency (citing circuit court jurisdiction under §§ 26.012(2)(b), 731.201).
Outcome Reversed and remanded on malpractice standing (case proceeds); affirmed disgorgement dismissal on principle but with discretionary remand flexibility.
Significance This ruling expands accountability in Florida estates: successor PRs can sue a prior PR’s attorney for malpractice causing estate harm, overcoming privity hurdles via probate statutes. It promotes efficient pursuit of estate claims while respecting probate’s primary role in fee disputes.