[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10255

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, 

CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC,

A Tennessee professional services corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

L. FRANK CHOPIN, 

Individually and as guardian of Kathleen DuRoss Ford, 

Defendant-Appellee.

USCA11 Case: 22-10255 Date Filed: 09/07/2022 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10255

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-81502-AMC

____________________

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker 

Donelson”) appeals the dismissal of its declaratory judgment action 

to establish that it is entitled to recover $140,733.94 from the Estate 

of Kathleen DuRoss Ford. Baker Donelson argues that the district 

court erred when it dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction under the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction.

Baker Donelson was retained by Kathleen DuRoss Ford’s 

daughter, Deborah DuRoss Guibord, to bring a state guardianship 

proceeding that sought to find her mother incapacitated and institute a guardianship. The guardianship court ultimately found Mrs. 

Ford incapacitated but appointed L. Frank Chopin as guardian, 

which Ms. Guibord opposed and she appealed the appointment. 

Ms. Guibord filed a request with the guardianship court for a formal determination of entitlement to fees and costs for her counsel. 

The court stayed consideration of the request until the conclusion 

of the pending appeal. Baker Donelson then filed a statement of 

claim in the pending probate proceedings. Mr. Chopin filed an 

USCA11 Case: 22-10255 Date Filed: 09/07/2022 Page: 2 of 6
22-10255 Opinion of the Court 3

objection, asserting that Baker Donelson must bring an independent action in order to preserve the claim. In response, Baker Donelson brought this action, which the district court dismissed for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction upon Mr. Chopin’s motion. The 

district court concluded that the matter was subject to the probate 

exception to diversity jurisdiction.

We review dismissal of a complaint by the district court for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 

F.3d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009). 

District courts typically have jurisdiction to hear civil actions 

that satisfy both diversity and amount-in-controversy requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The probate exception to jurisdiction is court created and limited in scope. It applies to cases 

where the resolution would require a federal court to (1) probate 

or annul a will, (2) administer an estate, or (3) “dispose of property 

that is in the custody of a state probate court.” Stuart v. Hatcher, 

757 F. App’x 807, 809 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12, 126 S. Ct. 1735 (2006)). Federal courts 

retain jurisdiction to “entertain suits ‘in favor of creditors, legatees 

and heirs’ and other claimants against a decedent’s estate.” Marshall, 547 U.S. at 296 (quoting Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494, 

66 S. Ct. 296 (1946)). We construe the exception narrowly. Glickstein v. Sun Bank/Miami, N.A., 922 F.2d 666, 673 (11th Cir. 1991), 

abrogated on other grounds by Saxton v. ACF Indus., Inc., 254 F.3d 

959 (11th Cir. 2001)

USCA11 Case: 22-10255 Date Filed: 09/07/2022 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10255

We have permitted a suit against an estate that sought an 

interpretation of a will in the plaintiff’s favor, a declaratory judgment that the decedent breached an agreement to execute a will 

benefiting the plaintiff, the reformation of a mortgage held by the 

decedent and his wife, and a declaratory judgment that the wife 

breached her third-party beneficiary contract to execute the will to 

benefit the plaintiff. Michigan Tech Fund v. Century Nat’l Bank, 

680 F.2d 736 (11th Cir. 1982). We reasoned that in each of the 

claims, the plaintiff “stands in the position of either a creditor or 

legatee seeking to establish a claim against the estate.” Id. at 739. 

We stated that had the plaintiff sought a valuation of estate assets 

or actual transfer of property, the exception would apply. Id. at 

741. But because federal courts are “limited to declaring the validity of the asserted claims,” the exception did not apply. Id. (quoting Turton v. Turton, 644 F.2d 344, 374 (5th Cir. 1981)). We 

quoted the Supreme Court: “It is to be presumed that the probate 

court will respect any adjudication which might be made in settling 

the rights of parties in this suit in the Federal court.” Id. (quoting 

Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co., 215 U.S. 33, 46, 

30 S. Ct. 10 (1909)).

We conclude that the instant case falls within the probate 

exception. We conclude that determination of Baker Donelson’s 

claim for attorney’s fees is part of the guardianship administration 

process, and therefore falls within the second category of cases 

which the case law indicates is subject to the probate exception—

i.e. cases in which the federal court is called upon “to administer an 

USCA11 Case: 22-10255 Date Filed: 09/07/2022 Page: 4 of 6
22-10255 Opinion of the Court 5

estate.” Florida Statute section 744.108(8) expressly provides 

“When court proceedings are instituted to review or determine a 

guardian’s or an attorney’s fees under subsection (2), such proceedings are part of the guardianship administration process.” Moreover, sections 744.108(1) and (2) clearly contemplate that the court 

which should determine entitlement to attorney’s fees and the 

amount thereof is the court which appointed the guardian—that is 

Probate Judge Suskauer in this case. This only makes common 

sense. As the district court observed in the hearing below:

But for me to even know what amount is appropriate, 

I would essentially be doing the work of the probate 

court or the guardianship court in surveying all of the 

work that was done over the lengthy trial, et cetera.

Doc. 19 at 19-20. Moreover, the Florida law contemplates that entitlement to attorney’s fees and the amount thereof should take 

into account the benefit to the ward provided by the services. 

Zepeda v. Klein, 698 So.2d 329, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The 

guardianship court actually administering the estate is clearly the 

most appropriate court to evaluate the benefit to the ward resulting from the attorney’s services—i.e. to continue to handle this part 

of the administration of the estate.

Because the Florida statutory scheme clearly contemplates 

that routine attorney’s fee applications are to be reviewed by the 

guardianship court, and expressly provides that such review proceedings “are part of the guardianship administration process,” 

USCA11 Case: 22-10255 Date Filed: 09/07/2022 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-10255

section 744.108(8), we readily conclude that this case is subject to 

the probate exception to diversity jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

.

USCA11 Case: 22-10255 Date Filed: 09/07/2022 Page: 6 of 6