Kim Law, as prior Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Geneva Jarvis, Appellant, v. IV (2026)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Kim Law, as prior Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Geneva Jarvis, Appellant, v. Reuben Williams, IV, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Geneva E. Jarvis, Appellee.

Case No. 5D2025-1054

Decided: May 29, 2026

Lynn Buchanan, of the Buchanan Law Offices, PLLC, Gainesville, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee.

Appellant, Kim Law, as prior successor personal representative of the Estate of Geneva Jarvis, appeals an order granting a petition to surcharge Law in the amount of $300,000. On appeal, Law argues that competent, substantial evidence does not support the finding that the Estate suffered damages in that amount. We agree.

The Estate's primary asset is a parcel of real property. While serving as personal representative of the Estate, Law obtained an offer to purchase the property in the amount of $300,000. However, the sale was delayed, and the potential buyer eventually backed out.

Thereafter, an interested party petitioned the court to surcharge Law, alleging that she breached her fiduciary duty and caused the loss of the sale. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the petition in the full amount of the withdrawn offer of $300,000.

On appeal, Law argues that there was no evidence that the Estate was damaged in the amount of $300,000. “A personal representative's fiduciary duty is the same as the fiduciary duty of a trustee of an express trust, and a personal representative is liable to interested persons for damage or loss resulting from the breach of this duty.” § 733.609(1), Fla. Stat. (2024). But a surcharge award must reflect the actual loss caused by the breach and may not place the estate “in a better position than [it] would have occupied without the breach of fiduciary duty.” Brush v. Coppelli, 407 So. 3d 518, 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025); see Kinchla v. Ran Invs., LLC, 397 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).

In this case, the undisputed evidence established that the Estate still owns the property. Moreover, there is no evidence that the property lacks value, cannot be sold, or that the Estate otherwise realized a loss in the amount of $300,000. For these reasons, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded.

Per Curiam.

Jay, C.J., and Wallis and Eisnaugle, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network