- 6 -
Until September 15, 1989, consistent with their mistaken
belief in the estate's liquidity, petitioner and her attorneys
also mistakenly believed that the estate's 1989 DNI would not
exceed $100,000. Notwithstanding that the Florida elective share
is not entitled to participate in estate income, petitioner's
attorneys believed that petitioner's elective share would attract
the estate’s DNI in the year of payment. As early as summer
1989, petitioner's attorneys were trying to minimize the impact
of the estate’s DNI on petitioner's income tax liability, well
before they learned in late September how much DNI there would
be. In a July 6, 1989, letter to Mr. Deutsch's attorneys,
petitioner's attorneys asked the estate to make an immediate
distribution to the residuary beneficiaries, which would have
required them to include their proportionate shares of DNI in
their taxable income. In subsequent telephone conversations with
Mr. Deutsch's attorneys at the end of August, petitioner's
attorneys again asked the estate to make concurrent distributions
to the residuary beneficiaries. When Mr. Deutsch refused to do
so, petitioner's attorneys asked him to postpone payment of the
elective share until a later year.
On September 6, 1989, petitioner filed with the Probate
Court a Motion for Appointment of Administrator Ad Litem,
alleging that Mr. Deutsch's dual role as estate fiduciary and
beneficiary created a conflict of interest. On September 15,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011