In a recent ruling, the Third District Court of Appeal in Florida reversed a lower court's decision that denied compensation to Olga Evgrafova, the personal representative of the estate of Tamara McKeehan. The court found that the lower court had made errors by excluding key testimonies and failing to consider essential evidence. This ruling impacts Evgrafova and the estate's administration, highlighting the importance of proper legal procedures in estate management.
The case, filed under docket number 3D25-2008, stems from a dispute over the administration of McKeehan's estate, which includes significant assets such as cash accounts and a New York co-op apartment. The court's decision emphasizes the need for a fair hearing to determine Evgrafova's compensation for her role in managing the estate.
Olga Evgrafova was appointed as the personal representative of Tamara McKeehan's estate following McKeehan's passing in 2020. In her will, McKeehan also named Father Kenneth Daniel McKenzie as the successor trustee of a revocable trust and the sole beneficiary of her estate. The estate was valued at over one million dollars, comprising various assets, including cash and property.
After Evgrafova had served as the personal representative for six years, McKenzie filed multiple motions to compel the administration of the estate and to finalize the estate tax closing letter. He argued that Evgrafova had delayed the process by insisting on renovating the New York apartment instead of selling it, leading to unnecessary expenses. The apartment was eventually sold in April 2025 for $550,000.
McKenzie claimed that Evgrafova's management of the estate had caused significant delays and additional costs, including switching attorneys multiple times. He moved to compel payment of his distributive interest after the sale and argued that the estate had been overdue for closure by approximately three years. The court granted his motion, directing the issuance of $781,000 to McKenzie as trustee.
In response, Evgrafova filed petitions seeking statutory and extraordinary compensation for her services as the personal representative. McKenzie opposed these petitions, arguing that Evgrafova's requests were excessive and that she had failed to fulfill her duties effectively.
The lower court held an evidentiary hearing where Evgrafova attempted to present expert testimony from Lance Lvovsky, a CPA. However, McKenzie moved to disqualify Lvovsky, claiming he was not independent due to prior payments for services rendered to the estate. The court granted this motion, which led to the exclusion of Lvovsky's testimony.
Additionally, the court denied Evgrafova's request to testify herself, citing her status as an interested party. Following these rulings, the court denied both of Evgrafova's petitions for compensation and her motions for reconsideration. Evgrafova subsequently filed a motion for rehearing, which was also denied, prompting her appeal.
The Third District Court of Appeal, led by Judge Gordo, reviewed the case and found that the lower court had abused its discretion in excluding Evgrafova's expert witness and her own testimony. The court stated, "The court disqualified Evgrafova’s expert, Lvovsky, because he was not a 'neutral' witness as his accounting firm had previously been paid for services to the estate. Florida law provides that an expert’s financial interest or perceived bias does not disqualify a witness from testifying—it is a matter of credibility and weight for the trier of fact, not a matter of admissibility."
The court further emphasized that excluding Evgrafova from testifying simply because she was an interested party was also erroneous. The opinion noted, "Interest merely goes to the credibility of the evidence." The court highlighted that a personal representative is entitled to a 3% statutory commission for their services, which is presumed reasonable unless evidence suggests otherwise.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the lower court had denied Evgrafova's petitions without allowing her to present any evidence regarding her compensation. The court stated, "To permit the trial court to rule on the issue of final [personal representative] fees... without the parties having the opportunity to present evidence on the factors enumerated in section 733.617... would be a violation of the parties’ right to notice and an opportunity to be heard."
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing. This hearing will allow Evgrafova to present her case for compensation based on the statutory criteria outlined in Florida law.
This ruling is significant as it underscores the importance of due process in estate administration cases. It ensures that personal representatives have the opportunity to defend their compensation claims and that courts consider all relevant evidence before making decisions.
Moving forward, the case will return to the lower court for a new hearing to determine Evgrafova's compensation as personal representative. The outcome of this hearing will depend on the evidence presented and the court's assessment of the statutory factors involved in determining reasonable compensation.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether there are any related cases pending or if this decision can be appealed further.