5D02-332 Edelman v. Breed

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D02-332

Case Date: 02/03/2003

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003

DANIEL M. EDELMAN, etc., Appellant, vs. JOHNNIE CORDELL BREED, et al., Appellees. / Opinion Filed February 7, 2003 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, W. Rogers Turner, Judge. Joseph A. Frein of Law Offices of Joseph A. Frein, Orlando, and Charles P. Pillans, III, of Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pillans & Coxe, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant. Alan B. Taylor and Paul E. Dehart of Litchford & Christopher, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees. PLEUS, J. This is an appeal from an order which removed Daniel Edelman as the personal representative of the Estate of Allen Kent Breed, deceased. Allen Breed invented the triggering device to inflate airbags in motor vehicles. Edelman, a CPA, had been Breed's advisor on financial and tax matters. After Breed's death, Edelman and Breed's widow, Johnnie Cordell Breed, had a falling out over fees and expenses in the estate. At the urging of Mrs. Breed, the petition for removal was filed by the co-trustees of the Allen K. Breed Revocable Trust which was the sole Case No. 5D02-332

beneficiary under Breed's will. The amended petition alleged a multitude of grounds for removal, including a pending malpractice action filed by Mrs. Breed against Edelman and his accounting firm. After an answer to the adversarial proceedings was filed by Edelman, a hearing was held by the Honorable W. Rogers Turner. Over a two-day period, the co-trustees put on evidence. After they rested, Edelman moved for a directed verdict. Counsel for the cotrustees responded, "I think we've made a prima facie case to have him removed now through a directed verdict on our favor." The trial court took the matter under advisement and the next day granted the co-trustees' "Motion for a Directed Verdict." The court then made findings of fact in which the trial court concluded that there was "an unquestionable conflict of interest" with respect to the malpractice suit by Mrs. Breed, everything had become "adversarial", and there had been "maladministration of the estate", as well as "absolutely astronomical fees" incurred thus far. Counsel for Edelman properly objected, stating: Judge, if I can respond. This was an adversary proceeding served by formal notice being adopted in the court by the Rules of Civil Procedure. I have at least six witnesses to testify. I have direct examination from Mr. Edelman. I have testimony for the attorneys for

Download 5D02-332 Edelman v. Breed.pdf