By Steven C. Fraser, Esq. | FL Bar No. 625825 | DC Bar No. 460026
Estates pay for administration, and the people who receive that money are usually the personal representative and the professionals the personal representative hired. Florida Probate Rule 5.355 is the procedure by which an interested person can ask the court to review whether an employment was proper and whether the compensation is reasonable. The Supreme Court's June 25, 2026 order divided the rule into subdivisions and reorganized it, as noted in the housekeeping amendments post. The committee notes say plainly that the rule is not intended to create a new procedure or modify an existing one.
The rule as it now reads
Subdivision (a), Review. The court may review the propriety of the employment and the reasonableness of the compensation paid to the personal representative or any person employed by the personal representative. A petition seeking review must be filed with the court and served on all interested persons.
Subdivision (b), Petition. The petition must state the grounds on which it is based. The burden of proving the propriety of the employment and the reasonableness of the compensation is on the personal representative and the person employed by the personal representative. Any person determined to have received excessive compensation from an estate may be ordered to make appropriate refunds.
The rule is short. The substance comes from the statute it implements.
The statute behind it
The committee notes explain that the rule implements the procedure found in section 733.6175, Florida Statutes, reformatted to conform to the structure of the probate rules. I checked the current text of section 733.6175, and it adds details that the rule leaves to the statute:
- The court may review the propriety of the employment of any person employed by the personal representative and the reasonableness of any compensation paid to that person or to the personal representative.
- Court proceedings to determine reasonable compensation, if required, are part of the estate administration process. The court determines the costs, including attorneys' fees, of the person assuming the burden of proof, and they are paid from the assets of the estate unless the court finds the requested compensation to be substantially unreasonable. The court directs from which part of the estate the compensation is paid.
- The burden of proof of propriety and reasonableness is on the personal representative and the person employed, and a person determined to have received excessive compensation may be ordered to make appropriate refunds.
- The court may determine reasonable compensation without receiving expert testimony. Any party may offer expert testimony after notice to interested persons, and if it is offered, a reasonable expert witness fee is awarded and paid from estate assets.
The rule's own statutory references also point to sections 733.617 (compensation of personal representative) and 733.6171 (compensation of attorney for the personal representative), which are where the standards for the amounts themselves are found.
What this means in practice
- Who files. The rule speaks of a petition seeking review, and the petition must be filed and served on all interested persons. It is a pleading, not a letter to the personal representative.
- Plead the grounds. The petition must state the grounds. A general complaint that fees seem high is not what the rule describes.
- The burden is not on the objector. The personal representative and the person employed carry the burden of proving that the employment was proper and the compensation reasonable. That allocation shapes the strategy of both sides, and it is the part of the rule most worth remembering.
- Exposure runs both ways. A person found to have received excessive compensation may be ordered to refund it, and under the statute's cost provisions the cost of defending the compensation is paid from the estate unless the court finds the request substantially unreasonable.
- Expert testimony is optional. The court can decide reasonableness without it, so a party deciding whether to offer an expert should do so after notice to interested persons, as the statute provides.
Why this is worth an article
Compensation disputes in estates are rarely about arithmetic. They are about whether the work was needed, whether it was done at a fair price, and who has to prove it. Rule 5.355 puts the proof on the people who were paid, and a beneficiary who understands that is better placed to decide whether a review is worth the fight. A personal representative who keeps contemporaneous records is better placed to win one.
Source: Florida Probate Rules (The Florida Bar), October 1, 2026 edition, Rule 5.355, committee notes, and rule history; Section 733.6175, Florida Statutes (2026); In re Amendments to Florida Probate Rules, No. SC2025-1478 (Fla. June 25, 2026).
Steven C. Fraser is admitted in the District of Columbia (1998) and Florida (2003) and practices in bankruptcy, tax controversy, consumer protection, probate, and related litigation. This article summarizes a published court rule and statute. It is not legal advice, and it is not an opinion on any particular estate.