Trustee Surcharge in Florida: Complete Legal Framework for Holding Fiduciaries Accountable

When a Florida trustee mismanages trust property, self-deals, or otherwise breaches fiduciary duties, beneficiaries have powerful remedies—including a surcharge action that seeks monetary recovery from the trustee personally. This litigation tool makes the trust estate whole after fiduciary misconduct.

What a Trustee Surcharge Is Under Florida Law

A trustee surcharge is a court-imposed monetary judgment requiring a trustee to repay the trust for losses caused by breach of fiduciary duty. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal defined the remedy precisely in Kathleen G. Kozinski, etc. v. Amy Stabenow and Nora Faul, 152 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014): “A ‘surcharge’ is the amount that a court may charge a fiduciary that has breached its duty. The purpose of such an award is to make the estate whole when the fiduciary’s actions cause loss or damage to the estate.” Id. at 653.

Unlike removal proceedings that focus on future harm, a trustee surcharge Florida action addresses past misconduct through financial accountability. The trustee pays damages from personal assets—not from the trust itself—making surcharge a potent deterrent against self-dealing, negligence, and willful disregard of fiduciary obligations.

Florida law recognizes surcharge under both the Florida Trust Code (Fla. Stat. § 736) and common law principles. The remedy applies across fiduciary contexts: trustees under revocable and irrevocable trusts, personal representatives under Fla. Stat. § 733.6175, and guardians under Fla. Stat. § 744.108. The controlling statute for trustees is Fla. Stat. § 736.0206, which codifies the trustee’s duty to administer the trust in good faith and in accordance with its terms and purposes.

Surcharge actions often arise when trustees engage in self-dealing, commingle trust funds with personal accounts, fail to diversify investments, refuse to distribute assets, or ignore accounting obligations. As the Fourth District explained in Miller v. Miller, 89 So. 3d 962, 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), “A surcharge action seeks to impose personal liability on a fiduciary for breach of trust through either intentional or negligent conduct.” This breadth—covering both intentional wrongdoing and mere negligence—makes surcharge applicable to a wide range of trustee failures.

The Legal Grounds and Elements a Beneficiary Must Prove

Florida courts require beneficiaries to establish several elements before imposing a surcharge. These elements form the analytical framework for every trustee surcharge Florida case and must be proven by competent evidence at trial.

Element One: Existence of a Fiduciary Duty

The beneficiary must first prove that a valid trust existed and that the defendant served as trustee, thereby owing fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries. This requires producing the trust instrument, any amendments, and evidence that the defendant accepted the trustee role (through signed acceptance, conduct administering the trust, or court appointment). Under Fla. Stat. § 736.0206, the trustee owes a duty to administer the trust “in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and the interests of the beneficiaries, and in accordance with this code.”

The scope of fiduciary duties includes the duty of loyalty, duty of impartiality, duty of prudent administration, duty to keep beneficiaries informed, and duty to account. Each of these duties is enforceable through surcharge. Courts examine what obligations does a trustee have under florida law by reference to both the trust instrument and the Florida Trust Code’s mandatory provisions.

Element Two: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Next, the beneficiary must demonstrate that the trustee breached one or more fiduciary duties. Common breaches supporting surcharge include:

• Self-dealing: Engaging in transactions between the trust and the trustee personally, or between the trust and entities the trustee controls, without full disclosure and court approval.
• Failure to diversify: Maintaining concentrated positions in speculative assets or retaining underperforming investments without proper justification.
• Commingling: Mixing trust assets with the trustee’s personal funds or accounts, making it impossible to distinguish trust property.
• Improper distributions: Making distributions to beneficiaries without authority, or refusing to make mandatory distributions required by the trust terms.
• Failure to account: Violating the trustee duty to account florida beneficiary by refusing to provide accountings or providing incomplete or false accountings.
• Negligent administration: Failing to collect rents, allowing property to deteriorate, missing tax deadlines, or otherwise managing assets below the standard of a prudent investor.

The breach need not be intentional. As Miller makes clear, negligent conduct suffices for surcharge liability. However, intentional breaches typically result in larger awards and may trigger additional remedies such as removal and denial of trustee compensation.

Element Three: Causation

The beneficiary must prove a causal link between the trustee’s breach and the trust’s loss. Florida courts apply a “but for” causation standard: the loss would not have occurred but for the trustee’s breach. In investment cases, this often requires expert testimony comparing the trust’s actual performance against appropriate benchmarks or alternative investment strategies a prudent trustee would have pursued.

Causation issues frequently arise in market-loss cases. If a trustee negligently holds concentrated stock and the stock declines, the beneficiary must show that a prudent trustee would have diversified and that diversification would have prevented or reduced the loss. The trustee may attempt to prove that market conditions would have caused losses regardless of proper administration—a defense addressed below.

Element Four: Quantifiable Damages

Finally, the beneficiary must quantify the trust’s loss with reasonable certainty. This requires financial evidence: account statements, appraisals, expert reports, transaction records, and damage calculations. As the Kozinski court emphasized, the purpose is “to make the estate whole when the fiduciary’s actions cause loss or damage to the estate.” 152 So. 3d at 653. Courts will not impose surcharge without a demonstrated financial injury.

Damages may include lost principal, lost income, lost appreciation, costs to repair property damage, legal fees incurred to remedy the breach, and interest. In self-dealing cases, courts may award disgorgement of profits the trustee earned from the improper transaction, even if the trust suffered no direct loss.

Who Has Standing to Bring a Trustee Surcharge Action

Standing to pursue a trustee surcharge Florida claim is limited to parties with a direct financial interest in the trust. Florida courts recognize the following classes of plaintiffs:

• Current beneficiaries: Any beneficiary entitled to current distributions (income or principal) has standing to challenge trustee conduct affecting the trust estate.
• Remainder beneficiaries: Individuals or charities entitled to trust assets after the current beneficiary’s interest terminates have standing to protect the corpus, even if they have no current distribution rights.
• Contingent beneficiaries: Beneficiaries whose interest depends on a future event (such as surviving the current beneficiary) generally have standing if their interest is more than speculative.
• Co-trustees: A co-trustee may bring surcharge claims against a fellow co-trustee for breach of duty, particularly when the co-trustee’s passivity or acquiescence contributed to the breach.
• Successor trustees: A newly appointed trustee has standing to pursue claims on behalf of the trust estate against a predecessor trustee, protecting current and future beneficiaries.

Importantly, creditors of beneficiaries and general creditors of the trust typically lack standing to bring surcharge actions. Standing analysis often overlaps with the question of whether a party qualifies as a “qualified beneficiary” under Fla. Stat. § 736.0103, which defines beneficiaries entitled to notice and information.

When multiple beneficiaries have standing, one beneficiary may bring suit on behalf of all similarly situated beneficiaries through a representative action. This avoids duplicative litigation and ensures consistent outcomes. The issue of standing may also intersect with the trustee’s decision to refuse distributing assets florida, prompting beneficiaries to seek both removal and surcharge remedies simultaneously.

Burden of Proof and Evidence Required to Establish Liability

In Florida surcharge litigation, beneficiaries bear the initial burden of proving each element by a preponderance of the evidence—more likely than not. This standard applies to all civil trust litigation under Florida law. However, evidentiary burdens shift depending on the type of breach alleged and the availability of trust records.

Documentary Evidence

Successful surcharge actions rely heavily on documentary proof:

• Trust accountings: Formal accountings (or lack thereof) establish the trustee’s financial activity and reveal discrepancies, unexplained transactions, or missing assets.
• Bank and investment statements: Monthly and annual statements trace cash flows, investment decisions, and commingling.
• Correspondence: Emails, letters, and text messages between the trustee and beneficiaries, advisors, or third parties may reveal knowledge, intent, and warnings ignored.
• Appraisals: Property valuations establish baseline values and demonstrate losses from negligent maintenance or improper sales.
• Tax returns: Trust and personal tax returns reveal income, distributions, and inconsistencies between reported and actual transactions.
• Contracts and deeds: Transaction documents prove self-dealing, improper sales, or unauthorized purchases.

When trustees fail to maintain records or refuse to produce accountings, courts may draw adverse inferences and shift evidentiary burdens. A trustee’s refusal to comply with the trustee duty to account florida beneficiary may result in presumptions favoring the beneficiary’s damage claims.

Expert Testimony

Complex surcharge cases require expert witnesses to establish the standard of care and quantify damages:

• Trust and estate attorneys: Testify about fiduciary duties, trustee obligations under Florida law, and whether the trustee’s conduct fell below professional standards.
• CPAs and forensic accountants: Trace funds, reconstruct missing records, identify commingling, and calculate damages including lost income and appreciation.
• Investment advisors: Opine on prudent investment practices, diversification standards, and whether the trustee’s investment decisions met the prudent investor rule.
• Real estate appraisers: Value trust real property and establish losses from improper sales, deferred maintenance, or unauthorized encumbrances.

Expert testimony proves particularly critical in investment mismanagement cases. The beneficiary must show not only that the trustee’s investment strategy was imprudent but also that an alternative, prudent strategy would have achieved better results. This counterfactual analysis requires sophisticated financial modeling and industry expertise.

Witness Testimony

Lay witnesses support surcharge claims through firsthand knowledge:

• Beneficiaries: Testify about communications with the trustee, requests for information, and knowledge of trust assets.
• Family members: Provide context about the settlor’s intentions, family dynamics, and the trustee’s conduct.
• Advisors: Attorneys, accountants, and financial professionals who advised the trustee may testify about warnings given, advice ignored, or instructions violated.
• Third parties: Buyers, sellers, tenants, and contractors may testify about transactions involving trust property and the trustee’s representations.

In many cases, the trustee’s own testimony becomes critical evidence. Depositions and trial testimony reveal the trustee’s understanding of duties, justifications for challenged decisions, and credibility on disputed facts.

Procedure, Deadlines, and the Statute of Limitations

Florida trust litigation follows specific procedural rules, and timing is critical. Missing a deadline can forever bar a meritorious surcharge claim.

Statute of Limitations

Surcharge actions are subject to limitations periods that vary based on the nature of the claim and whether the trustee provided proper accountings. Florida law recognizes several applicable statutes:

• Four-year statute: General breach of fiduciary duty claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations under Florida common law, running from the date the beneficiary knew or should have known of the breach.
• Six-month limitation after accounting: If a trustee provides a proper accounting that adequately discloses a transaction or decision, beneficiaries have only six months to object under Fla. Stat. § 736.1008. Failure to object within this period may bar later surcharge claims based on disclosed conduct.
• Fraudulent concealment: The statute may be tolled when the trustee fraudulently conceals the breach or fails to provide required accountings. This tolling continues until the beneficiary discovers or reasonably should have discovered the breach through reasonable diligence.

The interplay between accounting obligations and limitations periods makes the trustee duty to account florida beneficiary critical. Trustees who fail to account cannot invoke the six-month limitations period and face extended exposure to liability.

Procedural Posture and Venue

Surcharge actions are typically filed in the circuit court of the county where the trust is being administered. Fla. Stat. § 48 governs service of process, and Fla. Stat. § 736.0206 provides the substantive basis for relief. The case proceeds as a civil equity action, with discovery, motion practice, and ultimately trial before a judge (not a jury in most trust matters).

Beneficiaries may combine surcharge claims with related causes of action, including petitions for removal of the trustee, accounting, injunctive relief, and appointment of a successor trustee. Strategic plaintiffs often pursue florida law removal of a trustee and surcharge simultaneously, arguing that the same misconduct justifies both remedies.

Discovery and Pre-Trial Practice

Trust litigation involves extensive discovery. Beneficiaries typically serve:

• Interrogatories: Written questions requiring the trustee to identify assets, transactions, advisors, and decision-making processes.
• Requests for production: Demanding all trust records, accountings, correspondence, tax returns, and financial documents.
• Depositions: Examining the trustee, co-trustees, advisors, and third parties under oath.
• Subpoenas: Obtaining bank records, investment account statements, and other documents from financial institutions.

Trustees often resist discovery, claiming accountant-client privilege, attorney-client privilege, or that documents are irrelevant. Courts routinely compel production in surcharge cases, recognizing that beneficiaries cannot prove their claims without access to trust records. Failure to produce may result in sanctions, including adverse inferences at trial.

Common Defenses Trustees Raise and How They Are Met

Trustees facing surcharge liability invoke various defenses, some substantive and some procedural. Experienced litigators anticipate and counter these defenses through strategic pleading and evidence development.

Good Faith and Reasonable Business Judgment

Trustees frequently argue they acted in good faith and exercised reasonable business judgment, even if decisions proved unprofitable. This defense has limited application. While Fla. Stat. § 736.0206 requires administration “in good faith,” subjective good intentions do not excuse objective breach of duty. Courts examine whether the trustee’s process was reasonable—considering risk, diversification, and the trust’s purposes—not whether the outcome was successful.

Beneficiaries counter this defense by showing the trustee failed to investigate, ignored professional advice, acted on conflicts of interest, or pursued strategies inconsistent with the trust’s terms. Evidence that the trustee had no reasonable basis for a decision undermines good-faith claims.

Market Conditions and External Factors

In investment cases, trustees blame losses on market downturns or economic conditions beyond their control. This defense succeeds only when the trustee can prove that a prudent trustee following proper procedures would have experienced identical losses. Expert testimony is essential. If the beneficiary demonstrates that proper diversification or risk management would have reduced losses, market conditions provide no shield.

Beneficiary Consent or Acquiescence

Trustees may argue that beneficiaries consented to or ratified the challenged conduct. This defense requires clear proof that (1) the beneficiary had full knowledge of all material facts, (2) the beneficiary was legally competent and not under the trustee’s undue influence, and (3) the beneficiary affirmatively approved the action. Silence or failure to object generally does not constitute consent, particularly when the trustee failed to provide adequate disclosures.

Courts scrutinize consent defenses carefully. If the trustee controlled information flow or misrepresented facts, any purported consent is invalid. The burden rests on the trustee to prove valid, informed consent.

Statute of Limitations and Laches

As discussed above, trustees invoke statutes of limitations to bar stale claims. Beneficiaries overcome this defense by establishing fraudulent concealment or demonstrating they could not have discovered the breach through reasonable diligence. Trustees who failed to provide accountings cannot successfully argue that time has run.

Laches—unreasonable delay causing prejudice—is a related equitable defense. Courts consider whether the beneficiary’s delay was excusable and whether the trustee suffered prejudice (such as lost evidence). This defense rarely succeeds when the trustee actively concealed information or discouraged inquiry.

Exculpatory Clauses in the Trust Instrument

Some trust instruments contain exculpatory clauses attempting to limit trustee liability. Florida law permits such clauses but imposes strict limits. Under Fla. Stat. § 736.1011, exculpatory clauses are unenforceable to the extent they relieve a trustee of liability for breach of trust committed in bad faith, with reckless indifference, or with intentional disregard of the beneficiaries’ interests.

Beneficiaries challenge exculpatory clauses by demonstrating willful misconduct, self-dealing, or recklessness. Even when valid, these clauses typically protect only against ordinary negligence, not gross negligence or intentional breaches. Courts also examine whether the clause was inserted through the trustee’s undue influence over the settlor.

Advisors’ Negligence

Trustees sometimes blame losses on attorneys, accountants, or investment advisors, arguing these professionals provided negligent advice. This defense fails in most cases because trustees retain ultimate responsibility for trust administration. Delegation does not eliminate fiduciary duty. Trustees must prudently select advisors, monitor their performance, and make final decisions independently. If an advisor’s negligence contributed to the loss, the beneficiary may add that advisor as a defendant but may still recover fully from the trustee.

Remedies and Outcomes Available Through Surcharge Litigation

Florida courts possess broad equitable authority to fashion remedies in trust litigation. Surcharge is one of several remedies available when trustees breach fiduciary duties.

Monetary Surcharge

The primary remedy is a monetary judgment requiring the trustee to restore lost value to the trust. As Kozinski explained, the purpose is “to make the estate whole when the fiduciary’s actions cause loss or damage to the estate.” 152 So. 3d at 653. This includes:

• Direct losses: Lost principal, diminished asset values, unauthorized expenditures, and misappropriated funds.
• Lost income and appreciation: Income the trust would have earned but for the breach, and appreciation in value that would have occurred under proper management.
• Costs of remediation: Expenses incurred to correct the trustee’s errors, repair damaged property, or recover misappropriated assets.
• Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest: Compensation for the time value of money from the date of breach through payment.

In self-dealing cases, courts may award disgorgement of the trustee’s profits, even exceeding the trust’s direct losses. This unjust enrichment remedy prevents trustees from profiting from breaches of loyalty.

Removal of the Trustee

Surcharge claims frequently accompany petitions for trustee removal. Courts that find serious breach of trust typically remove the trustee to prevent future harm, even when the trust has been fully compensated for past losses. The standards for florida law removal of a trustee overlap significantly with surcharge grounds: breach of duty, conflict of interest, and failure to administer effectively.

Denial or Reduction of Trustee Compensation

Trustees who breach fiduciary duties may forfeit their right to compensation. Courts reduce or deny fees in proportion to the seriousness of the misconduct. A trustee who engaged in self-dealing or intentional breach may receive no compensation for the entire period of service, while a trustee guilty of mere negligence may face partial fee reduction.

Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Florida courts may award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in trust litigation under Fla. Stat. § 736.1004. When a beneficiary successfully proves surcharge liability, the court typically orders the breaching trustee to pay the beneficiary’s reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs from the trustee’s personal funds—not from the trust. This fee-shifting provision enables beneficiaries to pursue meritorious claims without depleting trust assets and deters trustee misconduct.

Conversely, if a beneficiary brings a frivolous or bad-faith surcharge claim, the court may award fees to the trustee. However, courts recognize beneficiaries’ right to challenge questionable conduct and grant fee awards against beneficiaries sparingly.

Constructive Trust and Tracing Remedies

When a trustee misappropriates specific trust property and transfers it to third parties, courts may impose a constructive trust on the property or its traceable proceeds. This equitable remedy allows beneficiaries to recover identifiable assets rather than accepting a monetary judgment, particularly valuable when the trustee is insolvent.

Injunctive Relief

During litigation, beneficiaries may seek temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions to prevent the trustee from dissipating assets, making unauthorized distributions, or continuing harmful conduct. These provisional remedies preserve the status quo and protect trust property pending final adjudication.

Why Experienced Litigation Counsel Is Decisive in Surcharge Cases

Trustee surcharge litigation presents complex legal, procedural, and evidentiary challenges that require specialized expertise. The stakes are high: beneficiaries seek to recover substantial losses, while trustees face personal liability that can exceed insurance coverage and threaten personal assets.

Experienced trust litigation counsel provides decisive advantages:

• Case evaluation: Assessing whether the evidence supports each element of a surcharge claim, calculating potential damages, and advising on the likelihood of success.
• Strategic positioning: Determining whether to pursue surcharge alone or combine it with removal, accounting, and other claims to maximize leverage and outcomes.
• Evidence development: Marshaling documentary evidence, retaining appropriate experts, conducting effective depositions, and overcoming trustee obstruction.
• Motion practice: Defeating statutes of limitations defenses, compelling discovery, obtaining preliminary relief, and opposing dismissal motions.
• Trial advocacy: Presenting complex financial evidence clearly to judges, cross-examining adverse experts, and making persuasive legal arguments on fiduciary law.
• Settlement negotiation: Leveraging litigation strengths to achieve favorable settlements, including trustee removal, fee disgorgement, and structured payments.

Many surcharge actions involve parallel issues such as suing a trustee in florida for other breaches, seeking removal when a trustee is not distributing assets florida properly, or enforcing the trustee duty to account florida beneficiary. Counsel familiar with the full landscape of trust disputes can identify all viable claims and develop a comprehensive litigation strategy.

Equally important, the trustee’s conduct often crosses into criminal territory—particularly in cases involving embezzlement, forgery, or fraud. Litigation counsel can coordinate with law enforcement and use the threat of criminal referral as leverage in settlement negotiations.

Common Questions About Trustee Surcharge in Florida

Can I Sue a Family Member Serving as Trustee for Surcharge?

Yes. Trustees owe fiduciary duties regardless of family relationship. In fact, many surcharge cases involve family trustees because these individuals often lack professional expertise and may feel entitled to use trust assets informally. Courts hold family trustees to the same standards as professional trustees. Family relationships do not excuse breaches of loyalty, prudence, or accounting obligations. Emotional difficulty notwithstanding, beneficiaries have both the right and sometimes the obligation to hold family trustees accountable when breach occurs.

What Happens If the Trustee Cannot Afford to Pay the Surcharge?

A surcharge judgment is a personal liability of the trustee, enforceable through all standard collection mechanisms: wage garnishment, bank account levy, property liens, and asset seizure. If the trustee is insolvent, beneficiaries may recover nothing despite winning in court. This reality underscores the importance of early action: once a trustee dissipates personal assets or transfers property, collection becomes difficult. Some trustees carry fiduciary liability insurance, which may cover negligent (but not intentional) breaches. Beneficiaries should investigate insurance coverage early in the case.

How Long Does a Trustee Surcharge Case Typically Take?

Timeline varies based on case complexity, court docket congestion, and parties’ cooperation. Simple cases with clear documentary evidence may settle within six to twelve months. Complex cases involving substantial discovery, expert witnesses, and contested trials can take two to four years from filing to final judgment. Delays often result from trustees’ obstruction during discovery, requiring repeated motions to compel. Mediation, which Florida courts encourage in trust disputes, can substantially shorten the timeline if both parties negotiate in good faith.

Can a Trustee Be Surcharged for Losses That Occurred Before I Became a Beneficiary?

Potentially. If you are now a qualified beneficiary—even if your interest became vested after the breach—you have standing to seek restoration of trust assets. The surcharge benefits the trust estate, not individual beneficiaries, so recovery flows to the trust for the benefit of all current and future beneficiaries. However, statutes of limitations may bar claims based on conduct that occurred many years ago, unless fraudulent concealment tolled the limitations period. An early consultation with counsel is essential to preserve claims.

Does Surcharge Require Proof of Intent to Harm the Trust?

No. As Miller held, surcharge applies to “either intentional or negligent conduct.” 89 So. 3d at 963. A trustee who acts with good subjective intentions but negligently violates fiduciary duties remains liable. This strict standard reflects the high degree of care Florida law imposes on fiduciaries. Negligence alone suffices, though intentional misconduct typically results in larger damages and additional sanctions including removal and fee forfeiture.

What If the Trust Instrument Includes a “No-Contest” Clause?

No-contest clauses, which disinherit beneficiaries who challenge the trust, generally do not apply to surcharge actions. Florida courts distinguish between contests challenging the validity of the trust itself (which may trigger a no-contest clause) and actions enforcing the trust’s terms by holding the trustee accountable (which do not). Surcharge claims fall into the latter category. Beneficiaries seeking to enforce fiduciary duties are acting consistently with the settlor’s intent, not contrary to it. However, no-contest clause analysis is fact-specific and requires careful review of the trust’s language and the nature of the claims asserted.

Bottom Line: Holding Florida Trustees Accountable Through Surcharge

When trustees breach their duties, Florida beneficiaries are not powerless. Surcharge litigation provides a direct path to recovery, imposing personal liability on trustees and restoring losses to the trust estate. Whether the breach involves self-dealing, investment mismanagement, failure to account, or simple negligence, the law provides clear remedies. As both Kozinski and Miller confirm, courts will “make the estate whole” and hold fiduciaries accountable through monetary judgments, removal, and fee forfeiture.

Successful surcharge actions require rigorous evidence, strategic litigation planning, and command of complex fiduciary law. The elements—duty, breach, causation, and damages—must each be proven by competent testimony and documentation. Procedural missteps, missed deadlines, or inadequate evidence development can doom meritorious claims. Conversely, trustees facing surcharge claims need sophisticated defense counsel who can marshal good-faith defenses, challenge causation, and negotiate favorable resolutions.

If you are a Florida beneficiary concerned about trustee misconduct, or a trustee facing surcharge allegations, time is critical. Statutes of limitations, ongoing damage to trust assets, and the need to preserve evidence all demand prompt action. The attorneys at Zoecklein Law, P.A. have extensive experience litigating trust disputes throughout Florida, representing both beneficiaries and fiduciaries in high-stakes surcharge cases. Call us at (877) 206-0022 to discuss your situation in a confidential consultation. We’ll evaluate your claims or defenses, outline your options, and develop a litigation strategy designed to protect your interests and achieve the best possible outcome.

Authorities Cited

• Kathleen G. Kozinski, etc. v. Amy Stabenow and Nora Faul, 152 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
• Miller v. Miller, 89 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
• Fla. Stat. § 48 (Service of process)
• Fla. Stat. § 733.6175 (Proceedings for review of employment of agents and compensation of personal representatives and employees of estate)
• Fla. Stat. § 736.0103 (Definitions, Florida Trust Code)
• Fla. Stat. § 736.0206 (Trustee’s standard of care and performance)
• Fla. Stat. § 736.1004 (Attorney’s fees and costs)
• Fla. Stat. § 736.1008 (Limitations on proceedings against trustees)
• Fla. Stat. § 736.1011 (Exculpation of trustee)
• Fla. Stat. § 744.108 (Guardian’s and attorney’s fees and expenses)