CLIFF MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN MILLER AND CONNIE L. MILLER, ETC., 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.
A trust beneficiary brought a surcharge action against co-trustees, alleging they improperly leased trust property to a company in which they held an ownership interest without fair market value. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings that the trustees acted in the trust's best interest and that damages were not proven, but reversed the approval of a renewed lease due to insufficient evidence and conflict of interest concerns.
The trial court properly found that trustees acted in the trust's best interest and that the appellant failed to prove damages necessary for a surcharge. However, the approval of a renewed lease was improper because the original lease contained no renewal clause and the purported new lease was not presented to the court for approval, requiring trustees to seek approval of any new lease given the conflict of interest.
[1] A surcharge action seeks to impose personal liability on a fiduciary for breach of trust through intentional or negligent conduct.
[2] The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, and damages flowing from the breach.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) damages flowing from the breach.”
Establishes the three-part test required to prevail in a surcharge action against fiduciaries.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClifford Miller, as beneficiary of a family trust, sued the co-trustees for entering into a lease agreement on behalf of the trust with a company in w…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conflict Of Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Clifford Miller, as beneficiary of a family trust, filed a surcharge action1 against the co-trustees of the trust. He sought damages alleging that the co-trustees improperly entered into a lease agreement that did not provide fair market value to the trust. He also sought to void the lease agreement. The lease agreement at issue was entered into by the trustees on behalf of the trust and a company in which the trustees hold an ownership interest. Appellant appeals from a final judgment refusing to remove co-trustees, approving the lease renewal, authorizing payment of attorney’s fees from trust assets, and entering judgment in his favor on one of his claims. The trial court’s finding that the trustees acted in the best interest of the trust in entering the lease are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Additionally, the trial court correctly concluded that Appellant failed to prove damages that would support imposing a surcharge against the trustees. See Crusselle v. Mong, 59 So.3d 1178, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) damages flowing from the breach.”).
However, the evidence was not sufficient to support approval of a new or renewed lease, prospectively. The original lease did not contain a renewal clause, and although one of the trustees testified that a new lease had been entered, the purported new lease was not presented to the court for approval. Accordingly, we affirm the final order in all respects except for the provision approving a renewed lease. It will be incumbent upon the trustees to secure approval of any new lease for the property, which involves a potential conflict of interest. See § 736.0802(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA, LAWSON and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kozinski v. Stabenow, 152 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…omitted). Moreover, in the context of trust proceedings, the Fifth District has said that “[a] surcharge action seeks to impose personal liability on a fiduciary for breach of trust through either intentional or negligent conduct.” Miller v. Miller, 89 So. 3d 962, 962 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). It is clear under the case law that a surcharge proceeding can be pursued when a fiduciary pays excessive fees to himself, herself, or agents of the fiduciary. In re Estate of Winston v. Winston, 610 So. 2d 1323, 1325…
-
Hett v. Regions Bank (M.D. Fla. 2025)…hat duty, and (3) 2 ---PAGE 3--- Case 8:25-cv-00161-WFJ-AEP Document 13 Filed 06/13/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID 74 damages flowing from the breach.” Lesti v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 960 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1323 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (quoting Miller v. Miller, 89 So. 3d 962, 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)). Here, Plaintiff fails to put forward a sufficient factual basis to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty or assert facts that show the Court has diversity jurisdiction to adjudicate a state law claim pursuant to 28 U.…
-
Veolia Water N. Am. - S., LLC v. City of Everglades City (M.D. Fla. 2019)…m, and fails to allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship. “The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) damages flowing from the breach.” Miller v. Miller, 89 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (quoting Crusselle v. Mong, 59 So. 3d 1178, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)). Fiduciary relationships are either expressly or impliedly created. Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So. 2d 515, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). When a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Merkle v. Guardianship OF Robert J. Jacoby, 862 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Crusselle v. Mong, 59 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Harding v. Rosoff, 951 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)