LORRAINE C. TILLMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELMER L. SMITH, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
VIRGINIA SAVAGE SMITH, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court addresses whether attorney's fees incurred by an estate beneficiary for legal services benefitting the estate qualify for Class 1 or Class 7 priority under Florida's estate priority statute. The court holds that only attorney fees of personal representatives receive Class 1 priority, while beneficiary attorney fees fall into Class 7.
Attorney's fees incurred by estate beneficiaries for legal services benefitting the estate receive Class 7 priority, not Class 1 priority. Class 1 priority is reserved exclusively for attorney fees of personal representatives.
[1] Attorney's fees incurred by an estate beneficiary for legal services that benefit the estate are not considered costs and expenses of administration for the purpose of pr…
[2] Under Florida Statutes section 733.707, only attorney's fees incurred by the personal representative are classified as Class 1 expenses.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Clearly, the statute differentiates between "costs, expenses of administration" and attorney fees. It enumerates them separately, and the only attorney fees it places in Class 1 are those incurred by personal representatives.”
Establishes the court's key interpretive principle that the statute distinguishes between types of costs and specifically limits Class 1 attorney fees to personal representatives only.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElmer L. Smith died and his estate was administered by Lorraine Tillman as personal representative. Virginia Savage Smith, a beneficiary, incurred att…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
COBB, Judge.
Lorraine Tillman, as personal representative of the estate of Elmer Smith, challenges the trial court’s determination that attorney’s fees incurred by an estate beneficiary for legal services which benefitted the estate1 are entitled to a Class 1 rather than Class 7 priority under section 733.707, Florida Statutes (1987). That statute provides:
Order of payment of expenses and obligations.—
(1) The personal representative shall pay the expenses of the administration and obligations of the estate in the following order:
(a) Class 1. — Costs, expenses of administration, and compensation of personal representatives and their attorneys’ fees.
(b) Class 2. — Reasonable funeral, interment, and grave-marker expenses, whether paid by a guardian under s. 744.-441(16), the personal representative, or any other person, not to exceed the aggregate of $3,000.
(c) Class 3. — Debts and taxes with preference under federal law.
(d) Class Jf.. — Reasonable and necessary medical and hospital expenses of the last 60 days of the last illness of the decedent, including compensation of persons attending him.
(e) Class 5. — Family allowance.
(f) Class 6. — Debts acquired after death by the continuation of the decedent’s business, in accordance with s. 733.612(22), but only to the extent of the assets of that business.
(g) Class 7. — All other claims, including those founded on judgments or decrees rendered against the decedent during his lifetime, and any excess over the sums allowed in paragraphs (b) and (d).
(2) After paying any preceding class, if the estate is insufficient to pay all of the next succeeding class, the creditors of the latter class shall be paid ratably in proportion to their respective claims. The trial court held that such fees constituted costs and expenses of administration. Clearly, the statute differentiates between “costs, expenses of administration” and attorney fees. It enumerates them separately, and the only attorney fees it places in Class 1 are those incurred by personal representatives. Had the legislature intended any attorney fee taxable against the estate to have a Class 1 priority, it would have been a simple matter to say so. As the appellant points out, it is a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation that the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another (expressio unius est exclusio alterius). Peeples v. State, 46 Fla. 101, 35 So. 223 (1903). The attorney fees at issue must fall within Class 7, not Class 1. See Sessoms v. Johnson, 378 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
REVERSED.
COWART and DANIEL, JJ., concur. . In a prior appeal, Tillman v. Smith, 526 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), we affirmed an attorney fee award to the appellee for those attorney services which resulted in tax savings to the estate.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McKENZIE, 574 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…hose cases where it is not prohibited. “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius Expression of one thing is exclusion of another. In construing statutes, it is a fundamental rule that mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. Tillman v. Smith, 533 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). The rule has been held to mean, for example, that when a statute expressly enumerates a list of included offenses, it impliedly excludes from its operation any offenses not expressly enumerated — Williams v. State, 374 So. 2d 10…
-
Groth v. Ronda C. Weinstock, Ph.D., 610 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ished principle of statutory construction that the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. PW Ventures, Inc. v. Nichols, 533 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1988); Towerhouse Condominium, Inc., v. Millman, 475 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1985); Tillman v. Smith, 533 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Since psychologists are not contained within the various definitions of health care providers in chapter 766, we conclude that the legislature did not intend to include counseling services under the Comprehensive Medical Malprac…
-
Teague v. Est. OF Herbert D. Hoskins, 709 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1998)…on at issue here (the designation of attorney’s fees in regards to their priority of payment in estate claims) apparently has not been addressed by any other jurisdiction and in Florida only by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Tillman v. Smith, 533 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Thus, our decision in the instant case takes on added importance because it will place an initial stamp of interpretation on this provision. In order to resolve this issue, we focus our analysis on the origin of the claim that…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peeples v. State, 46 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1903)
- Sessoms v. Johnson, 378 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Tillman v. Smith, 526 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)