sunEthics

Trial court erred in imposing lien on homestead property for attorney's fees incurred in estate matter.  [Added 6/9/09]

Yates, a lawyer, was appointed as Curator for a decedent's estate.  Decedent's alleged second wife, Constance, was joint owner of homestead property in the estate.  Yates performed legal work for the estate.  "The services were for the administration of the Estate as a whole.  The services were not conducted for the specific purpose of preserving, insuring, and protecting the homestead property."  The trial court placed a lien on the homestead property for  attorney's fees and costs incurred by Yates.  Constance appealed, arguing that statutory requirements of the probate code (specifically, Fla.Stat. sec. 733.608) for placing a lien on homestead property in an estate matter had not been met.

Agreeing, the Fourth DCA reversed.  "The trial court’s decision to impose the lien pursuant to section 733.608 was improper because, in accordance with the plain meaning of the statute, Yates failed to meet its requirements.  This is because:  (1) Yates has not, and cannot, take possession of the property, as it is occupied by an 'interested person;' [joint owner Constance] and (2) the fees incurred by Yates for which the lien was imposed were not incurred for the purpose of preserving, maintaining, insuring, or protecting the homestead property."  Herrilka v. Yates, __ So.3d ___ (Fla. 4th DCA, No. 4D08-1727, 6/3/2009).

sunEthics is produced by Tim Chinaris, and hosted by Faulkner University's Jones School of Law.  Please read our disclaimers.  Search our site, or view previously posted summaries using our SUBJECT INDEX.  © 2009