Bookman v. Davidson, 136 So. 3d 1276

Dana Ford was appointed personal representative of Deborah Irby’s estate (Jan. 2007), engaged attorney Dale Davidson, and the estate paid Davidson $195,000.
Ford resigned (Feb. 2010); Alan B. Bookman was appointed successor personal representative (Feb. 2010).
Bookman (as successor) sued Ford and Davidson alleging Ford, with Davidson’s advice, improperly disclaimed/transferred estate assets; alleged malpractice and sought disgorgement of fees.
Ford asserted good-faith reliance on counsel and cross‑claimed against Davidson for malpractice.
Trial court granted Davidson summary judgment, holding Bookman lacked standing/privity to sue Davidson for malpractice, and dismissed the disgorgement claim as more appropriate for probate proceedings.

Issue	Bookman’s Argument	Davidson’s Argument	Held
Whether a successor personal representative can sue predecessor’s attorney for legal malpractice on behalf of the estate	Successor (Bookman) has the same powers as predecessor and thus may pursue malpractice claims on behalf of the estate	Successor lacks privity with the predecessor’s attorney and therefore lacks standing to sue for malpractice	Reversed summary judgment: successor has statutory authority under Fla. Stat. §733.614 to exercise predecessor’s powers, including suing for malpractice (standing exists)
Whether disgorgement of estate-paid attorney’s fees must be litigated in probate proceedings (or whether civil court may hear it)	Disgorgement is a proper estate claim but may be heard by circuit court in related civil action for convenience	Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction or is the proper forum to review estate professional compensation	Affirmed dismissal on prudential grounds: probate proceedings are the more appropriate forum, but civil court has subject-matter jurisdiction and may, in its discretion, try disgorgement with related claims if no prejudice or inconvenience occurs

Petty v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 80 So.3d 313 (Fla. 2012) (statutory language controls when clear)
Srygley v. Capital Plaza, Inc., 82 So.3d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (statutory clarity forecloses further construction)
In re A.G., 40 So.3d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (same principle on unambiguous statutes)
Sessions v. Willard, 172 So. 242 (Fla. 1937) (personal representative’s duty to pursue estate assets)
Onofrio v. Johnston & Sasser, P.A., 782 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (discussing successor representative claims against predecessor’s counsel)
In re Winston, 610 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (probate court’s authority to review and fix estate fees)
Maugeri v. Plourde, 396 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (circuit court judges share full jurisdiction within circuit)
Fort v. Fort, 951 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (same principle on internal court operation and jurisdiction)
Weaver v. Hotchkiss, 972 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (same)
Yost v. Am. Nat’l Bank, 570 So.2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (permitting consolidation/joint trial of related claims when not prejudicial)