Background
Kim Law served as personal representative of the Estate of Geneva Jarvis, whose primary asset was a parcel of real property. While serving in that capacity, Law obtained a $300,000 offer to purchase the property. However, the sale was delayed and the potential buyer eventually withdrew. An interested party petitioned the court to surcharge Law, alleging she breached her fiduciary duty and caused the loss of the sale. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the petition for the full amount of the withdrawn offer—$300,000.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth DCA reversed, holding that competent, substantial evidence did not support a surcharge in the amount of $300,000. A surcharge must reflect actual loss caused by the breach and may not place the estate in a better position than it would have occupied absent the breach. Here, the trial court equated the withdrawn offer price with the estate’s damages without establishing that $300,000 represented the property’s fair market value or that the property could not be sold for a comparable or greater amount. A withdrawn offer is not, by itself, proof that the estate lost $300,000 in value—the property still existed as an estate asset and could be sold at its actual market value.
Key Takeaways
- A surcharge against a personal representative must be based on the estate’s actual loss—not merely the amount of a withdrawn purchase offer.
- The petitioner must present evidence of the property’s fair market value to establish that the breach caused a quantifiable loss to the estate.
- Where real property remains an estate asset after a failed sale, damages are measured by the difference between what the estate should have received and what the property is actually worth—not by the withdrawn offer alone.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance for probate litigators seeking surcharge remedies against personal representatives. It establishes that courts cannot simply use a withdrawn offer as a proxy for damages without independent proof of market value. For personal representatives facing surcharge claims, the ruling offers protection against inflated damage claims based on offers that may not have reflected true market conditions. The practical lesson: parties seeking surcharge must retain appraisers or present comparable-sales evidence to establish the actual financial harm caused by the alleged breach.