Court Opinion

ID: 9909484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 16:04:18.233605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:27.831013
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                      Opinion filed December 13, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-2065
                        Lower Tribunal No. 21-3654
                           ________________

                           Donna D. Gnaegy,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                            Debra D. Morris,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L.
Fernandez, Judge.

     Reiner & Reiner, P.A., and David P. Reiner, II, for appellant.

     Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., and Jessica L. Gross and
Nina N. Batista, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.

     EMAS, J.
     INTRODUCTION

     Appellant, Donna D. Gnaegy, appeals from an order that 1) granted

summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Debra D. Morris on various claims

filed against Appellant individually and as personal representative of the

decedent’s Estate and as trustee of his Revocable Trust, but reserved ruling

on, and did not determine the amount of, damages; 2) found Appellee

entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, but reserved ruling on, and did not

determine the amount of, fees and costs; and 3) removed Appellant as

personal representative of the Estate and as trustee of the related Trust.

     We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing Appellant

as personal representative of the Estate and as trustee of the Trust and

affirm that portion of the trial court’s order. 1 However, we dismiss the

remainder of the appeal as taken from a nonfinal, nonappealable order.

     BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

     Donna D. Gnaegy (Appellant) and Debra D. Morris (Appellee) are

sisters. In 2019, their father, Donald D. Forsht (the Decedent), died testate,

1
  We review an order removing a personal representative for abuse of
discretion. Boyles v. Jimenez, 330 So. 3d 953, 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
(citing Henderson v. Ewell, 149 So. 372, 372 (1933)). We likewise review for
abuse of discretion a trial court's decision “whether to remove a trustee.”
Giller v. Grossman, 327 So. 3d 391, 393-94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citing
Wallace v. Comprehensive Pers. Care Servs., Inc., 306 So. 3d 207, 210 (Fla.
3d DCA 2020)).

                                      2
with a Will and a Revocable Trust Agreement governing the disposition of

his assets upon death. Such assets included Wells Fargo Bank accounts;

homestead property; a Morgan Stanley Traditional IRA; an “Avocado farm”

comprised of more than six acres; shares of stock in Green Forest Grove,

Inc., a company in which Appellant and her husband shared an interest and

served as directors; a loan receivable from Green Forest Grove, Inc.; and

tangible personal property.

      The Decedent named Appellant personal representative of the Estate

and trustee of the Revocable Trust. As such, she hired an attorney and an

accountant to administer the Estate and Trust. More than a year after the

Decedent’s death, Appellant filed a petition for administration of the estate,

and executed an oath of personal representative. Two weeks later, letters of

administration were issued and an order admitting will to probate was

entered, requiring Appellant to take numerous actions, including: submit an

inventory of Estate assets; close the Estate within 12 months; place liquid

assets in a court-designated depository; and, if real estate was sold, place

the net sales proceeds in the depository. The order also prohibited Appellant

from selling, encumbering, borrowing, or gifting any Estate assets without a

separate order from the court.

                                      3
      It is largely undisputed that Appellant failed to comply with the letters

of administration and order directing her to take the aforementioned actions.

Instead, Appellant took the position below and on appeal that she relied on

advice of counsel and thus cannot be found liable for any resulting damage

suffered by the Estate.

      Upon Appellant’s failure to comply with the order, Appellee filed an

adversary proceeding, alleging her sister breached her fiduciary duty,

individually, as personal representative of the Estate, and as trustee of the

Revocable Trust; committed a breach of trust individually and as trustee; and

engaged in maladministration of Trust assets. Appellee maintained that

Appellant’s continuous failure to carry out her obligations as personal

representative and trustee (e.g., file an inventory of Estate assets, distribute

Trust income, etc.) resulted in substantial monetary damage to Appellee as

beneficiary of the Estate. Based on these allegations, Appellee sought a

trust accounting, removal of Appellant as personal representative and

trustee, as well as compensatory, consequential, special and punitive

damages.

      Appellee later filed the underlying motion for summary judgment on all

counts, with attachments in support of the motion (e.g., the decedent’s will

and trust, the letters of administration, federal tax returns, bank statements).

                                       4
Appellant responded, inter alia, that: (1) summary judgment should be

denied because discovery is ongoing; and (2) because she relied on her

attorney and accountant to administer the Estate, the Trust and the finances,

“there is no circumstance where she could be found to have intentionally or

negligently breach[ed] a fiduciary duty.” Appellee attested to the fact that she

hired her father’s attorneys for assistance and “did everything they asked me

to do with respect to the administration of my father’s assets, estate and

trusts.”

      The probate court held a hearing on the motion, after which it granted

the motion for summary judgment, removed Appellant as personal

representative, and appointed Appellee in her place.

      The trial court rendered an order, consistent with its oral

pronouncement, finding that Appellant “committed multiple violations of her

fiduciary duties as Personal Representative, each and all of which are

causes for removal under Fla. Stat. § 733.504,” and that, because she

breached “various duties [she] owes to the beneficiaries of the Trust” her

removal as Trustee “best serves the interests of the beneficiaries.” §

733.504, Fla. Stat. (2022) (“A personal representative may be removed and

the letters revoked for any of the following causes: . . . (3) Failure to comply

with any order of the court. . . . (5) Wasting or maladministration of the estate.

                                        5
. . . (9) Holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests against the estate

that will or may interfere with the administration of the estate as a whole.”);

see also § 736.0706(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“(2) The court may remove a

trustee if: . . . (c) Due to the unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of

the trustee to administer the trust effectively, the court determines that

removal of the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries”)

(emphasis added).

      Although granting summary judgment, the trial court reserved ruling

on, and did not determine the amount of, damages. This appeal followed.

      ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

      Appellee contends this appeal is premature, and that we lack

jurisdiction because the order is nonfinal and nonappealable. Appellee is

partially correct. This court has jurisdiction to review the order on appeal,

but only that portion of the order removing Appellant as personal

representative of the Estate and as trustee of the Revocable Trust. That

aspect of the order is final and appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.170(b):

      Appealable Orders. Except for proceedings under rule 9.100 and
      rule 9.130(a), appeals of orders rendered in probate and
      guardianship cases shall be limited to orders that finally
      determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined
      in the Florida Probate Code. Orders that finally determine a right
      or obligation include, but are not limited to, orders that:

                                        6
      ...
      (6) remove or refuse to remove a fiduciary;

(Emphasis added).

      This portion of the order did “finally determine a right or obligation of

an interested person” by removing Appellant as a fiduciary. Cf. Jensen v.

Est. of Gambidilla, 896 So. 2d 917, 918 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“This court

is without jurisdiction to address any procedural irregularities that led up to

the order removing Jensen as the personal representative because she

failed to timely appeal that order, which was a final, appealable order.”)

(citing In re Odza's Estate, 432 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)

(classifying an order removing a personal representative as a final,

appealable order)); The Florida Bar, Removal of Personal Representative

and Surcharge, LPC FL-CLE 9-1 (2023) (“The probate court's decision on a

petition for removal is deemed a final order and may be appealed as a matter

of right to the appropriate district court of appeal, even before the estate

administration is complete.”)

      The remaining aspects of the order—granting summary judgment in

favor of Appellee on her claims against Appellant, but reserving on the issue

of damages, as well as granting entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs while

reserving on amount—are nonfinal and nonappealable. See, e.g.,

                                      7
Laptopplaza, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 264 So. 3d 1049, 1052 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2019) (finding premature an order determining liability but reserving on

damages: “[A]n order determining liability in favor of Appellee, but reserving

the determination of the amounts of damages on the various causes of action

alleged in the complaint for future proceedings was a non-final, non-

appealable order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)”)

(quotation omitted). 2

      As to the question of whether the trial court properly removed Donna

Gnaegy as personal representative and trustee, we conclude there is

competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination

and action. Boyles v. Jimenez, 330 So. 3d 953, 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)

(“[A]n appellate court will not reverse an order removing a personal

representative absent a trial court's abuse of discretion.”); Giller v.

Grossman, 327 So. 3d 391, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“A trial court's decision

2
   In addition, the order on appeal merely “grants” summary judgment, but
does not actually enter judgment in favor of Appellee on her claims, nor does
it contain the traditional words of finality. This independently renders that
portion of the order nonfinal and nonappealable. See Lidsky Vaccaro &
Montes, P.A. v. Morejon, 813 So. 2d 146, 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (noting
“the law is settled that an order which merely grants a motion for summary
judgment and does not otherwise contain the traditional words of finality is
not a final order subject to appellate review. An order granting only summary
judgment merely establishes an entitlement to a judgment, but is not itself a
judgment.”) (internal citations omitted).

                                      8
whether to remove a trustee or to order a trustee to take certain actions is

reviewed by an appellate court for abuse of discretion.”) The trial court found

that Appellant “committed multiple violations of her fiduciary duties as

Personal Representative, each and all of which are causes for removal under

Fla. Stat. § 733.504(3).” In enumerating each cause for removal, the trial

court included specific examples of Appellant’s actions, including those listed

below:

   • Failure to comply with the Letters of Administration and the Order

      Appointing Personal Representative, e.g., she did not place the

      Estate’s liquid assets in a court depository pursuant to Florida statute.

   • Failure to produce and exhibit assets of the Estate, e.g., she did not

      “collect or properly investigate the loan due from Green Forest Grove,

      Inc. to the Decedent.”

   • Wasting and maladministration of the Estate, e.g., she continued to

      incur charges on the Decedent’s Wells Fargo credit card and failed to

      file appropriate tax returns for the Decedent and the Estate from 2017

      to 2021.

   • Conflict of interest, e.g., Appellant and her husband are directors and

      50% shareholders of Green Forest Grove, Inc., and therefore stand to

      gain should the loan, made by the Decedent to Green Forest Grove,

                                      9
      not be repaid to the Estate and should the value of the Decedent’s 50%

      ownership interest in Green Forest Grove not be determined.

      In similar fashion, the trial court found that Appellant “is in breach of

trust due to her violations of various duties [she], as Trustee, owes to the

beneficiaries of the Trust,” and, because she “persistently failed to administer

the Trust effectively,” her removal as trustee “best serves the interests of the

beneficiaries.” See § 736.0706(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022). Reasons for her

removal as Trustee of the Revocable Trust include failure to: provide notice

of acceptance of the Trust at any time, in violation of section 736.0813(a),

Florida Statutes (2022); file any tax returns for the Trust, thereby subjecting

the Trust to potential penalties and interest; render any Trust accountings

whatsoever in violation of section 736.0813(d), Florida Statutes (2022);

provide the Trust's beneficiaries with relevant information about the assets

and liabilities of the Trust and the particulars relating to administration in

violation of section 736.0813(e), Florida Statutes (2022); distribute Trust

income or principal to the Trust's beneficiaries in violation of section

736.08147, Florida Statutes (2022); invest Trust assets pursuant to the

prudent investor rule set forth in section 518.11, Florida Statutes (2022);

administer the Trust in the interests of the beneficiaries and abide by the

                                      10
express terms of the Trust in administering the Trust and distributing the

assets outright to the beneficiaries.

      We find ample competent, substantial evidence in the record to support

the trial court’s determinations, and hold the trial court acted within its

discretion in removing Appellant as Personal Representative of the Estate

and as Trustee of the Trust.

      CONCLUSION

      We affirm that portion of the order on appeal that removed Appellant

as Personal Representative of the Estate and as Trustee of the Revocable

Trust. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal as taken from a nonfinal,

nonappealable order.

      Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded for further

proceedings.

                                        11