Filing # 37788250 E-Filed 02/13/2016 07:09:15 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. 502014GA000630XXXXNB
Division: IZ
IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF
FRANCES BERKOWITZ
_________________________________/
PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF GUARDIAN, ELIZABETH SAVITT, BASED ON
WASTING, EMBEZZLEMENT AND/OR MISMANAGEMENT OF WARD’S
PROPERTY
Petitioners,

DONNA

GREENSPAN

SOLOMON

and

WILLIAM

WEBSTER

MILLSAPS, pursuant to section 744.474, Florida Statutes, and Florida Probate Rule 5.660,
hereby petition the Court for the removal of ELIZABETH SAVITT as the guardian of the person
and property of FRANCES BERKOWITZ, and in support thereof state as follows:
PARTIES
1.

At all times material hereto, Petitioner Donna Greenspan Solomon (“Solomon”)

was and is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.
2.

At all times material hereto, Solomon was and is an attorney and active member

of The Florida Bar with authority to practice law in the State of Florida. Solomon is one of two
attorneys Certified by the Florida Bar as both Business Litigation Expert and Appellate
Specialist. Solomon is the principal of Donna Greenspan Solomon, P.A. d/b/a Solomon Appeals,
Mediation & Arbitration, a Florida Professional Association.
3.

At all times material hereto, Petitioner William Webster Millsaps (“Millsaps”)

was and is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.
4.

At all times material hereto, Millsaps was and is an attorney and active member of

The Florida Bar with authority to practice law in the State of Florida. Millsaps is Certified by

 The Florida Bar as a Health Care Specialist. Millsaps is the principal of Web Millsaps Law, PL
(“Millsaps PL”), a Florida Limited Liability Company.
5.

Pursuant to section 731.201, Florida Statutes, Solomon and Millsaps are

“interested persons” who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the
instant Petition.
6.

At all times material hereto, Respondent Elizabeth Savitt (“Savitt”) was and is a

resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. On December 4, 2015, Savitt was appointed the
emergency temporary guardian of the ward, Frances Berkowitz (“Mrs. Berkowitz”). On January
7, 2015, Savitt was appointed the limited guardian of Mrs. Berkowitz.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7.

The amount in controversy exceeds $15,000.00, excluding interest, costs and

attorney’s fees.
8.

Venue in this action is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida.
INTRODUCTION

9.

In 2013 and 2014, Millsaps and Solomon represented Mrs. Berkowitz and her late

husband, Jerry Berkowitz (together, the “Berkowitzes”). A wide-ranging fraud had depleted the
Berkowitzes of their entire life savings of over $1.2 million. During the course of heavilycontested litigation, Millsaps and Solomon recovered over $835 thousand from the fraudster for
the benefit of their clients.
10.

In late 2014, Millsaps and Solomon became concerned that Mrs. Berkowitz was

suffering from diminished capacity and/or the undue influence of her caregivers. It appeared that
significant additional recoveries were being put at risk. As a result, Millsaps and Solomon
petitioned for the appointment of a professional guardian for Mrs. Berkowitz.

2

 11.

Unfortunately, the guardian appointed by the Court was Elizabeth (“Betsy”)

12.

Savitt has wasted, embezzled, and/or mismanaged the property of the ward, Mrs.

Savitt.

Berkowitz. Savitt has failed to account for or attempt to locate funds in excess of $400K that
should have been remaining in Mrs. Berkowitz’s accounts when Savitt took possession of such
accounts.
13.

Further, Savitt misused her authority as Guardian to settle Mrs. Berkowitz’s

pending litigation on terms that no reasonable Guardian familiar with the allegations would have
done. The terms were grossly negligent and extremely unfavorable to Mrs. Berkowitz. Due to
Savitt, Mrs. Berkowitz is forever barred from seeking the very same significant additional
recoveries that caused Millsaps and Solomon to petition for the appointment of a professional
guardian in the first place. Moreover, Savitt is using Mrs. Berkowitz’s remaining funds to file
unnecessary litigation that serves no purpose but to line the pockets of Savitt and her attorneys.
14.

Savitt should never have been appointed as Guardian of Mrs. Berkowitz. The

Guardianship was initially assigned to Judge Colin but, without explanation, a different judge
immediately appointed Judge Colin’s wife, Savitt, as Guardian.

Notably, the Petition for

Emergency Guardianship showed on its face that Mrs. Berkowitz had substantial assets.
15.

Judge Colin was recently removed from the probate division in the wake of The

Palm Beach Post’s investigation into the role of Judge Colin and Savitt in the guardianships of
incapacitated seniors.
16.

Savitt should likewise be removed as Guardian of Mrs. Berkowitz. Savitt should

not be allowed to profit from a Guardianship that she should never have been assigned to in the
first place.

3

 MATERIAL FACTS
17.

In early 2013, Sheryl L. Taylor (“Taylor”) contacted Millsaps seeking legal

representation for the Berkowitzes.

Upon meeting with the Berkowitzes separately, the

Berkowitzes told Millsaps that Taylor’s former employer had misappropriated virtually their
entire life savings.

Taylor corroborated the Berkowitzes’ allegations, explaining that the

Berkowitzes, an elderly couple, had indeed been victimized by Taylor’s former employer,
Prestigious Lifecare for Seniors LLC f/k/a PL Firm, LLC (“PL Firm”) and its owner Princella
Lewis (“Lewis”). Taylor advised that Lewis and the PL Firm had misappropriated significant
amounts of the Berkowitzes’ money through various means, including convincing the
Berkowitzes to sign powers of attorney that gave Lewis unfettered access to their funds. Taylor
advised that the Berkowitzes requested their money be returned to them. Mrs. Berkowitz alleged
that Lewis had scared and threatened her and told her she would never return the money. Taylor
and other witnesses corroborated these allegations, stating that Lewis had boasted she was
keeping the Berkowitzes’ money and would not return it.
18.

At this time, Mr. Berkowitz was living in a nursing home, Manor Care of

Boynton Beach (“Manor Care”). Mrs. Berkowitz was then living in an assisted living facility
(“ALF”) in Lake Worth. Subsequently, Mrs. Berkowitz moved into a different ALF in Boynton
Beach, closer to Manor Care and her husband. Mr. Berkowitz died the following summer, and
shortly thereafter, Mrs. Berkowitz moved from the ALF to live with Taylor and her husband,
Michel Telson (“Telson”) in their home.
19.

Taylor and Mrs. Berkowitz stated that Lewis had threatened Mrs. Berkowitz in

early 2013. In particular, Lewis threatened that she would claim that the Berkowitzes lacked
mental capacity and then use the “Designation of Healthcare Surrogate” that she had obtained to

4

 run the Berkowitzes’ affairs and keep all of their money. According to Mrs. Berkowitz and
Taylor, Lewis was malicious and gleeful, boasting directly to Mrs. Berkowitz and to Taylor that
there was nothing Mrs. Berkowitz could do to stop Lewis from absconding with the money.
Accordingly, as a matter of due caution, Millsaps arranged for a clinical and forensic
psychologist to examine the Berkowitzes and evaluate their capacity to assure that when the
Berkowitzes signed new legal documents (such as revocations of the powers of attorney that had
been granted to Lewis) there would be a concurrent record that the Berkowitzes had capacity.
20.

On or about May 2013, the psychologist reported his findings to Millsaps as

follows:
I found Mrs. Berkowitz to be completely capacitated but somewhat angry and depressed
at being taken advantage of by someone [Lewis] whom she thought was a friend. . . . My
impression of [Mr. Berkowitz] was that he had decisional capacity despite his advanced
illness . . . .
21.

After being retained by the Berkowitzes, Millsaps engaged Solomon and Solomon

Appeals, Mediation & Arbitration to assist and act as co-counsel in connection with prosecuting
the lawsuit captioned Jerry Berkowitz and Frances Berkowitz, vs. Princella Lewis, Prestigious
Lifecare For Seniors, LLC f/k/a PL Firm, LLC, and Glenn Ricardo Miller, Case No. 50-2013CA-005491-XXXX-MB-AJ, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida (hereinafter,
the “Fraud Action”).
22.

In the course of close to two years of litigation and highly contested discovery,

Millsaps and Solomon discovered evidence to support the following facts which they asserted in
a Second Amended Complaint on behalf of their client:
A.

When the Berkowitzes met Lewis in June 2012, they were an elderly, childless
couple with no close living friends or relatives. They were frightened by Jerry
Berkowitz’s failing health. Mr. Berkowitz had been diagnosed with cancer and

5

 hospitalized at Delray Medical Center, where he was subsequently transferred to
Manor Care. Manor Care referred the Berkowitzes to Lewis and PL Firm for a
consultation about potentially qualifying Mr. Berkowitz for Medicaid benefits.
B.

As a senior citizen of more than sixty-five (65) years, Jerry Berkowitz already had
Medicare coverage in effect in June of 2012. Moreover, Mr. Berkowitz was not
eligible for Medicaid.

C.

Nevertheless, Lewis told the Berkowitzes, who were in a particularly vulnerable
state, that Mr. Berkowitz would not receive necessary healthcare services unless
the Berkowitzes applied for Medicaid. Further, Lewis told the Berkowitzes that
they could “protect” their life savings of $1.2 million, but only if they did as
Lewis directed in applying for Medicaid.

D.

On or about July 3, 2012, Lewis had the Berkowitzes sign a contract with PL
Firm for “Medicaid Planning,” “Asset Protection Planning,” and “Monthly Care
Management.” For the “Medicaid Application” portion of the contracted services,
PL Firm charged the Berkowitzes $55,000, which Lewis falsely represented was
the “going rate” for the preparation of a Medicaid Application.

E.

On July 19, 2012, Lewis met privately with attorney Glenn Ricardo Miller
(“Miller”) in his Miami-Dade office. They discussed the Berkowitzes’ financial
situation and agreed that Lewis would bring Mrs. Berkowitz to Miller’s office a
few days later. In the meantime, Miller would prepare a Durable Power of
Attorney for each of Mr. Berkowitz and Mrs. Berkowitz to execute and sign over
financial control of their money to PL Firm and Lewis.

F.

On July 24, 2012, Lewis told Mrs. Berkowitz that she must consolidate all of her

6

 money, which until that date had been intentionally deposited in four (4) different
banks. By insisting that the Berkowitzes consolidate their accounts into a single
bank, Lewis contradicted the Berkowitzes’ longstanding plan of diversification to
avoid default risk.
G.

Also on July 24, 2012, a PL Firm employee transported Mrs. Berkowitz (who
does not drive) around Palm Beach County to three (3) of the four (4) different
banks where the Berkowitzes held accounts, specifically: Chase, PNC, and
SunTrust.

The Berkowitzes’ funds in Chase and PNC were held almost

exclusively in CDs.
H.

First, the PL Firm employee drove Mrs. Berkowitz to Chase. The PL Firm
employee escorted her inside, where PL Firm expressly required her to close her
accounts without regard to the cost of any penalty for prematurely cashing her
CDs.

I.

Next, Mrs. Berkowitz was driven to PNC. The same process was followed: “Tell
the bank you need to close all your bank accounts because you need to be strong
for Mr. Berkowitz.”

J.

Then, PL Firm brought Mrs. Berkowitz to SunTrust, where PL Firm instructed
Mrs. Berkowitz to consolidate all of the withdrawn money into her SunTrust
account. Mrs. Berkowitz did as she was told and deposited into SunTrust the
funds that had been “liquidated” at Chase and PNC earlier that day.

K.

Second, Mrs. Berkowitz was told to obtain a cashier’s check from SunTrust
payable directly to the “PL Firm” in the amount of $55,000. PL Firm told Mrs.
Berkowitz that this $55,000 was the fee for the “Medicaid Application” that PL

7

 Firm was preparing for Mr. Berkowitz. Mrs. Berkowitz did as she was told and
obtained a $55,000 cashier’s check from SunTrust, made payable to PL Firm.
L.

After what had already been a long day of driving around Palm Beach County
from bank to bank, Mrs. Berkowitz was driven by Lewis and the PL Firm down to
Miami to meet with attorney Miller in his office. Mrs. Berkowitz was told that
Miller had prepared legal documents that Mrs. Berkowitz needed to sign in order
to help her husband get medical care under Medicaid.

M.

When Mrs. Berkowitz arrived, Miller had already prepared two (2) documents, a
“Durable Power of Attorney” and a “Designation of Healthcare Surrogate,”
printed and ready for Mrs. Berkowitz to sign. Miller instructed Mrs. Berkowitz to
execute the documents making PL Firm and Lewis her “agent” under the Power
of Attorney.

N.

The Durable Power of Attorney that Miller had Mrs. Berkowitz sign on July 24,
2012 gave immediate, blanket authority to PL Firm and Lewis over Mrs.
Berkowitz’s financial assets. Miller billed Mrs. Berkowitz for legal fees and
advised Mrs. Berkowitz that he was acting as her attorney. However, Miller
never met alone with Mrs. Berkowitz, but only in the presence of Lewis and PL
Firm and its agents after first meeting alone with Lewis to take direction
regarding his engagement.

O.

Miller never gave Mrs. Berkowitz either the originals or copies of the Durable
Power of Attorney or the Healthcare Surrogate Designation that he had prepared
in advance and had Mrs. Berkowitz execute on July 24, 2012. Instead, Miller had
Mrs. Berkowitz’s original documents hand-delivered to Lewis.

8

 P.

Once Lewis received Mrs. Berkowitz’s original Durable Power of Attorney and
Designation of Healthcare Surrogate documents from Miller, Lewis withheld both
the originals and copies of the documents from Mrs. Berkowitz. In fact, Lewis
failed and refused to release the documents until Millsaps subpoenaed same and
PL Firm produced them to Millsaps on June 21, 2013 — almost eleven (11)
months after Lewis and Miller had Mrs. Berkowitz execute the documents in
favor of PL Firm and Lewis.

Q.

On July 27, 2012, three (3) days after Miller had Mrs. Berkowitz execute the
Durable Power of Attorney and Designation of Healthcare Surrogate documents
giving immediate power and control over money and healthcare decisions to
Lewis and PL Firm, Miller travelled from Miami-Dade County to Manor Care in
Palm Beach County to have Mr. Berkowitz execute similar legal documents preprepared by Miller. Miller never spoke with Mr. Berkowitz prior to arriving at his
bedside at Manor Care. When Miller arrived, he instructed Mr. Berkowitz to
execute the pre-prepared Durable Power of Attorney and Designation of Health
Care Surrogate documents giving immediate control of his financial and
healthcare decisions to Lewis and PL Firm.

R.

On August 3, 2012, Lewis met with a representative of New York Community
Bank d/b/a AmTrust Bank (“NYCB” or “AmTrust”) seeking to open a “trust
account” for PL Firm.

S.

Lewis’s purpose in opening a “trust account” was to assist her in fraudulently
convincing the Berkowitzes that money transferred to the PL Firm’s “trust
account” would be held “in trust” for the benefit and care of the Berkowitzes.

9

 T.

NYCB has two types of “trust accounts”: (i) an Interest on Lawyer’s Trust
Account (“IOLTA account”), which is appropriate only for attorneys and their
law firms; and (ii) a non-IOLTA “trust under agreement account,” in which case a
trust agreement is required before the account is opened.

U.

Lewis and PL Firm never entered into a written trust agreement with the
Berkowitzes and therefore could not have provided same to NYCB as required to
open a non-IOLTA “trust under agreement account.”

V.

Since Lewis is not an attorney and PL Firm is not a law firm, it should likewise
not have been able to open an IOLTA Account for PL Firm.

W.

Thus, Lewis and PL Firm should not have been able to open a “trust account” that
could be used to fraudulently convince the Berkowitzes that their funds were
being held in “trust.”

X.

However, NYCB violated its own policies and procedures by opening an IOLTA
Account for PL Firm, despite the fact that Lewis is not an attorney and PL Firm is
not a law firm.

Y.

By wrongfully opening an IOLTA account for a non-attorney such as Lewis,
NYCB skirted its own policies and procedures of requiring and reviewing a trust
agreement before opening a trust account for a non-lawyer.

Z.

Lewis and PL Firm opened the IOLTA account (hereinafter, the “321 Account”)
in the name of “PL Firm Trust” on August 3, 2012 with $20,000 of the $55,000
SunTrust cashier’s check previously made payable to PL Firm by Mrs. Berkowitz
for the illegal “Medicaid Application.” Also on August 3, 2012, Lewis and PL
Firm opened a commercial business account (the “311 Account”) with the

10

 remaining $35,000 of the $55,000 cashier’s check.
AA.

By wrongfully opening the 321 Account as an IOLTA account in the name of “PL
Firm Trust,” NYCB provided Lewis and PL Firm with both a means for
defrauding the Berkowitzes and a receptacle for depositing and laundering the
funds fraudulently obtained.

BB.

Lewis used the newly-opened 321 Account to convince the Berkowitzes that
funds transferred to the “PL Firm Trust” would be held “in trust” for their benefit
and use. Lewis insisted that the Berkowitzes needed to “protect” their life savings
and get Mr. Berkowitz his necessary health care services by transferring their
funds to this purported “trust” account.

CC.

On August 30, 2012, Lewis took Mrs. Berkowitz to BB&T bank – the one bank
that PL Firm had not previously taken Mrs. Berkowitz to on June 24, 2012, when
PL Firm drove her to her three other banks before transporting Mrs. Berkowitz to
attorney Miller in Miami.

DD.

Lewis instructed Mrs. Berkowitz to write a check from her BB&T bank account
payable to “The PL Firm Trust” in the amount of $17,000.

Further, Lewis

directed Mrs. Berkowitz to liquidate all her BB&T CDs, regardless of the
penalties for early withdrawal. Lewis instructed Mrs. Berkowitz to utilize the
proceeds from the liquidated CDs to obtain three (3) BB&T cashier’s checks
payable to “The PL Firm Trust” in the amounts of $55,999.67, $58,325.36 and
(another) $58,325.36.
EE.

Also on August 30, 2012, Lewis and agents of PL Firm drove Mrs. Berkowitz
back to SunTrust, where the funds liquidated at Chase and PNC had earlier been

11

 deposited. The Berkowitzes also had approximately 130 U.S. Government Series
EE Savings Bonds (“Government Bonds”) in their safety deposit box at SunTrust.
The Government Bonds had been accumulating tax-deferred interest for decades,
and cashing them all in at once would trigger a substantial income tax liability.
Nevertheless, Lewis told Mrs. Berkowitz that she must cash in all of the
Government Bonds. Mrs. Berkowitz, who had held the bonds for up to 30 years,
vigorously and repeatedly stated that she did not want to cash in the Bonds.
FF.

Lewis responded that she alone had legal authority over Mrs. Berkowitz’s
finances due to the Power of Attorney prepared by Miller, and demanded that
Mrs. Berkowitz cash in all of the Government Bonds.

GG.

The Government Bonds had a cash value of at least $450,000. Of this total
amount, approximately $320,000 was taxable interest income, which was
triggered by the redemption of the Bonds. Cashing in all of the Government
Bonds on this date in 2012 caused an additional federal income tax liability for
the Berkowitzes in the approximate amount of $82,000.

HH.

It took several days for SunTrust to liquidate the Government Bonds through the
U.S. Treasury. On September 14, 2012, after all of the Government Bonds had
been cashed and the proceeds deposited into the Berkowitzes’ SunTrust account,
Lewis went to SunTrust alone and emptied out virtually all of the Berkowitzes’
remaining funds at SunTrust. Using the Powers of Attorney that Miller had the
Berkowitzes execute in favor of PL Firm, Lewis converted the Berkowitzes’
money into two (2) cashier’s checks payable to “The PL Firm Trust” in the
amounts of $500,000.00 and $514,473.08.

12

 II.

On September 11 and 17, 2012, PL Firm deposited approximately $1,204,123.47
of the Berkowitzes’ converted funds – all payable to “The PL Firm Trust” —
into the AmTrust 321 Account, as follows:
Date
09/11/12

09/17/12

Source
BB&T
BB&T
BB&T
BB&T

$17,000.00
$55,999.67
$58,325.36
$58,325.36
Subtotal $ 189,650.39
$514,473.08
$500,000.00
Subtotal $1,014,473.08
$1,204,123.47

SunTrust
SunTrust

Total
JJ.

Amount

Thus, between August 3, 2012 and September 17, 2012, PL Firm deposited
$1,224,123.47 (the initial deposit of $20,000 plus $1,204.123.47 as per above) of
the Berkowitzes’ money into the 321 Account and $35,000.00 of the Berkowitzes’
money into the 311 Account, for a total of $1,259,123.47.

KK. PL Firm then used the Berkowitzes’ money in the 321 Account to pay itself for
services purportedly provided to the Berkowitzes.

By paying itself for such

alleged services, PL Firm violated Florida law, which has strict criteria that an
“agent” under a power of attorney is not permitted to pay itself fees for non-agent
duties, unless the power of attorney specifically authorizes such payments and,
even with such express authorization, only if the agent is acting strictly and solely
in the interest of the beneficiary.
LL.

Lewis and PL Firm did not use the money in the 321 Account for the benefit of the
Berkowitzes. As just one example, on September 17, 2012 – three (3) days after
emptying out the SunTrust account — PL Firm wrote a check to itself from the
321 Account in the amount of $56,000 for “auto reimbursement 9/12 care
13

 management.”

However, the funds were actually used to purchase a 2013

Mercedes Benz, registered to “Princella Lewis,” which was never used to transport
or for the benefit of the Berkowitzes.
MM. In a letter dated October 22, 2012, The Florida Bar Foundation advised Lewis that
she had not provided the “Notice to Bar Foundation” form required for IOLTA
accounts. In a letter dated November 6, 2012 to The Florida Bar Foundation,
Lewis stated: “[O]ur agency is not practicing law neither is it the intention of our
agency to assume we are practicing law. We are a Senior Care Consulting
Agency.” Lewis further stated: “In regards to the IOTA [sic] account opened, it
was the recommendations of the representative at Amtrust Bank to title the account
in such manner.”
NN. On or about December 4, 2012, Lewis faxed a copy of The Florida Bar Foundation
letter and her response to same to her NYCB account representative.
OO. In December 2012, after realizing that Account 321 had been improperly opened
as an IOLTA account for a nonlawyer, NYCB simply “re-titled” the IOLTA trust
account as a non-trust commercial “Business” interest-bearing checking account.
PP.

Despite the fact that trust accounts for nonlawyers can only be properly opened as
non-IOLTA “trust under agreement” accounts, NYCB never investigated whether
there was in fact a written trust agreement to cover the deposits that had been made
with checks payable to “PL Firm Trust Account.”

QQ. Despite the fact that checks payable to “PL Firm Trust Account” had been
deposited into an IOLTA account improperly opened by NYCB for a nonlawyer,
NYCB never considered the interests of or attempted to contact the beneficial

14

 owners of the funds that had been deposited “in trust.”
RR.

Despite the fact that over $1.2 million in checks payable to the “PL Firm Trust
Account” had been deposited into the 321 Account due to NYCB’s error in
opening an IOLTA account for a nonlawyer, NYCB simply converted the 321
Account from an IOLTA trust account to a commercial business checking account,
whereby PL Firm became the apparent beneficial as well as legal owner of the
account.

SS.

NYCB never attempted to inform the beneficial owners of the funds that had been
deposited “in trust” that their funds were now sitting in a commercial business
checking account.

TT.

Upon learning that PL Firm was not a law firm and its principals were not
attorneys, NYCB did not investigate and did not learn that no written trust
agreement existed to cover the deposits that had been made with checks payable to
“PL Firm Trust Account,” and thus did not thereupon close the 321 Account, and
freeze or implead PL Firm’s assets (until Mrs. Berkowitz filed suit, as discussed
below).

UU. Since September 14, 2012, when the PL Firm took the Berkowitzes’ money from
SunTrust, Mrs. Berkowitz repeatedly insisted on knowing the location of her
money and to see statements and documentation regarding the funds. PL Firm
refused all such requests. PL Firm and Lewis refused to provide the Berkowitzes
with any statements, receipts, or accounting of what had happened to the
Berkowitzes’ money.
VV. Eventually, after months of the Berkowitzes’ repeatedly requesting information

15

 regarding their money, Lewis told Mrs. Berkowitz directly that she was “never”
returning her money. Lewis told Mrs. Berkowitz that Mr. Berkowitz was going to
die soon and that when Mr. Berkowitz passed away, there would be nothing that
Mrs. Berkowitz could do whatsoever to obtain the return of the money.
WW. Lewis also told Mrs. Berkowitz that she had the legal authority to put Mrs.
Berkowitz in a mental hospital and that if Mrs. Berkowitz persisted in regard to
requesting statements of the funds or having the money returned, Lewis would
have Mrs. Berkowitz “declared incapacitated” and institutionalized.
23.

The Berkowitzes subsequently retained attorney Millsaps, who engaged Solomon,

and demanded a return of the Berkowitzes’ funds. Lewis refused to return the money, citing a
series of improper excuses and justifications.
24.

Eventually, after the Berkowitzes, through Millsaps and Solomon, initiated the

Fraud Action and moved for emergency injunctive relief, the PL Firm stated, through its thencounsel, Ruby Seymour-Barr (“Barr”), that hundreds of thousands of dollars of the Berkowitzes’
money had been taken by PL Firm for undefined, unauthorized, and unaccounted-for “services”
allegedly performed by PL Firm for the Berkowitzes, but that $750,000 remained unspent.
25.

Through the efforts of Millsaps and Solomon, and at the behest of the Court, PL

Firm finally returned the $750,000 admittedly belonging to the Berkowitzes through a check
drawn on the 321 Account.

However, Lewis refused to return the remaining funds (over

$544,000) or to provide a full explanation for what had happened to the missing money. In lieu
of providing a response, Lewis attempted to justify keeping the remaining money by arguing it
was compensation for services provided by the PL firm.

16

 26.

After extensive and contested discovery efforts, on or about June 21, 2013, during

a deposition, Lewis stated her belief that she and PL Firm owed the Berkowitzes an additional
amount of $85,148.92, which they paid in two checks ($84,675.84 + $473.08) during the
deposition. However, Lewis again refused to return the remainder of the Berkowitz’s funds or to
give an explanation for what had happened to the remainder of the missing money.
27.

Lewis also complicated the record and accounting efforts by stating that funds

from other PL Firm “clients” had been commingled with the Berkowitzes’ funds deposited into
the 321 Account, but that the PL Firm had kept no records or receipts of amounts collected from
the Berkowitzes (or from the other “clients”) nor had they provided records or statements to the
Berkowitzes for amounts charged to the Berkowitzes for alleged “services” provided by PL Firm
and Lewis.
28.

Mr. Berkowitz died on July 10, 2013; Mrs. Berkowitz subsequently appeared in

the Fraud action on behalf of both herself and as the court-appointed personal representative of
Mr. Berkowitz’s estate.
29.

During a continued deposition of Lewis, as the PL Firm’s corporate representative

on November 15, 2013, PL Firm admitted to possessing an additional $289,650.39 of Mrs.
Berkowitz’s funds. In connection therewith, on November 21, 2013, Ms. Lewis’ attorney Ms.
Bar emailed: “I expect to have a check out to your office by early next week.”
30.

However, instead of the promised check, on December 11, 2013, a new attorney,

Bruce Rosenwater, appeared in the Fraud Action and took over the representation of Lewis and
PL Firm. Despite demand, PL Firm did not tender the additional amount of $289,650.39 that
Ms. Lewis had admitted belonged to Mrs. Berkowitz.

17

 31.

PL Firm and Lewis subsequently produced in discovery a “Summary of Bank

Statement Activity,” a copy of which is annexed hereto as “Exhibit 1.” According to the
“Summary of Bank Statement Activity,” the 321 Account had a balance of $326,433 as of
December 31, 2013, and $312,244 of this amount admittedly belonged to Mrs. Berkowitz. In
addition, Lewis did not dispute that the $35,000 plus interest in the 311 Account belonged
entirely to Mrs. Berkowitz.
32.

Despite demand, PL Firm and Lewis did not tender the amount of $347,244

($312,244 plus $35,000), although they did not dispute that at least that amount was due and
owing to the Berkowitzes.
33.

Meanwhile, on November 22, 2013, Mrs. Berkowitz filed a complaint against

NYCB alleging various counts including negligence (“Negligence Action”). On January 16,
2014, NYCB filed a Complaint in Interpleader against the Berkowitzes and PL Firm (hereinafter,
the “Interpleader Action”) with respect to the funds held in the 321 Account and the 311
Account.
34.

Millsaps and Solomon represented Mrs. Berkowitz in the Negligence Action and

Interpleader Action as well as the Fraud Action (collectively, the “Underlying Actions”).
35.

In its complaint in the Interpleader Action, NYCB acknowledged that

$1,259,123.47 of the Berkowitzes’ funds had been deposited into the 321 Account and $35,000
into the 311 Account. However, NYCB took the position that only $268,544.50 of the funds
remaining in the combined 321 and 311 Accounts belonged to Mrs. Berkowitz – far less than the
$347,244 already conceded by Lewis and PL Firm (and far less than was actually still due to
Mrs. Berkowitz). According to NYCB, “$92,916.93 [was] deposited for the benefit of PL clients
other than Mrs. Berkowitz.”

18

 36.

Throughout the course of Millsaps’ and Solomon’s representation in the

Underlying Actions, Mrs. Berkowitz consistently made known both verbally and in writing that
her goal was not solely to recover her own funds wrongfully taken by Lewis, but also to “stop
Lewis” from being “able to do this to other people.” Mrs. Berkowitz specifically wanted to to
“stop Lewis” to honor her late husband, Mr. Berkowitz, who had testified from his hospice bed
on July 3, 2013 — one week before he died—as follows:
Q. So you are very angry with Princella Lewis?
A. Right.
Q. Why are you angry?
A. How can you rob two sick old people out of their life savings? And most of the
things she was saying was all a lie.
37.

Pursuant to Mrs. Berkowitz’s wishes and instructions, Millsaps retained private

investigators who assisted Millsaps and Solomon in uncovering additional victims of the
widespread fraud perpetrated by Lewis and PL Firm.
38.

On June 27, 2014, Mrs. Berkowitz filed an Amended Complaint in the

Negligence Action. Solomon thereafter informed NYCB’s counsel, Joshua Mize, that Mrs.
Berkowitz would be filing a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint.

Pursuant to

agreement of counsel, on July 11, 2014, NYCB filed a motion for extension of time to respond to
the Amended Complaint until after disposition of Mrs. Berkowitz’s motion to file a Second
Amended Complaint.
39.

On October 23, 2014, the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care

Administration, presented a Statement of Claim to Mrs. Berkowitz, as the Personal
Representative to the Estate of Mr. Jerry Berkowitz, to repay to the State of Florida, $33,751.38
paid on behalf of Mr. Berkowitz by the Medicaid program.

19

 40.

On November 6, 2014, a Second Amended Complaint was deemed filed in the

Fraud Action, pursuant to an Order entered that day granting Mrs. Berkowitz’s October 31, 2014
amended motion to file second amended complaint.
41.

On December 3, 2014, Millsaps filed a Petition for Appointment of Emergency

Temporary Guardian for Mrs. Berkowitz (“Petition”). Millsaps explained that Lewis had filed a
lawsuit against Taylor and Telson, in whose home Mrs. Berkowitz still resided. After Lewis
sued Taylor and Telson, Mrs. Berkowitz made conflicting statements to counsel about how she
wished to proceed and Taylor/Telson pressured Millsaps, stating that Mrs. Berkowitz wanted to
immediately dismiss her pending lawsuits against Lewis with prejudice, despite her prior
instructions and against her own self-interest. Millsaps was concerned that Taylor/Telson might
have a conflict of interest in their desire to settle their lawsuit with Lewis and might be unduly
influencing Mrs. Berkowitz to dismiss her lawsuits with prejudice due to Taylor/Telson’s desire
to have the lawsuit pending against them dismissed.
42.

Millsaps noted that if Mrs. Berkowitz had legal capacity and desired to terminate

the pending litigation with prejudice, that was her prerogative.

However, pending the

determination of the legal capacity of Mrs. Berkowitz to make decisions about litigation,
contracts, and finances, there was an imminent risk of loss if the pending litigations were to be
dismissed with prejudice or resolved without legal guidance and with the possible conflict of
interest with Taylor/Telson influencing Mrs. Berkowitz to resolve the pending litigations in a
manner that would otherwise not be as Mrs. Berkowitz desired (if she in fact was lacking legal
capacity) and/or in Mrs. Berkowitz’s best interest.
43.

Millsaps further noted that through litigation, Lewis had already been forced to

turn over the sum of $835,148.92 (the initial $750,000 in open court plus the $85,148.92 during

20

 deposition), but that anticipated future recoveries were being jeopardized potentially by the
diminished capacity of Mrs. Berkowitz, the undue influence of caregivers Taylor/Telson who
had an apparent conflict of interest, or a combination of both.
44.

Millsaps also noted that the $55,000 Medicaid application, the $33,751.38

repayment demanded by Medicaid, and the $82,000 in additional federal income tax payable due
to the cashing in of the Government Bonds represented damages to Berkowitz that remained to
be recovered, in addition to the remaining principal expropriated by Ms. Lewis.
45.

Millsaps further noted in the petition for guardianship that Mrs. Berkowitz had

remaining an estimated $400 thousand in liquid assets.
46.

In view of the pending petition for guardianship for their client, Millsaps and

Solomon determined they were no longer able to continue as Mrs. Berkowitz’s counsel, and on
December 4, 2014, they moved to withdraw as Mrs. Berkowitz’s attorneys in the Underlying
Actions.
47.

The court docket shows that the guardianship proceeding was assigned to Savitt’s

husband, Judge Martin H. Colin (“Judge Colin”). However, Judge Colin did not enter any orders
in the proceeding.
48.

Instead, on December 4, 2014, a different judge granted Millsaps’ petition for

emergency guardianship and appointed Savitt as the emergency temporary guardian of Mrs.
Berkowitz. On January 7, 2015, Savitt was appointed as the limited guardian (“Guardian”) of
Mrs. Berkowitz.
49.

Savitt was not a family member or friend of Mrs. Berkowitz, whom she had never

met before. Savitt was appointed as a “professional guardian.” The Statewide Public Guardian

21

 Office requires such professional guardians to undergo credit and criminal history checks before
being appointed.
50.

Despite the requirement for credit and criminal history checks before

appointment, Savitt and her husband had just had a final judgment of foreclosure entered against
them. On November 17, 2014 -- less than a month before the guardianship appointment---the
final judgment of foreclosure was rendered, showing a balance due of $308,328.04.

A

foreclosure sale was scheduled for March 17, 2015.
51.

On December 8, 2014, Savitt filed an emergency motion to compel Mrs.

Berkowitz’s bank to provide her with access to Mrs. Berkowitz’s financial records and to
distribute all of her funds to Savitt as Mrs. Berkowitz’s temporary guardian. The emergency
motion was granted that same day. Also on December 8, 2014, Savitt went to Mrs. Berkowitz’s
bank to “open accounts.”
52.

However, on December 26, 2014, Savitt told Millsaps that Mrs. Berkowitz had

“no money left” in her accounts, despite Millsaps’ advising Savitt that Mrs. Berkowitz should
have had close to half a million dollars remaining.
53.

On March 11, 2015, the bank in Savitt’s foreclosure action filed a motion to

cancel the pending sale scheduled for March 17, 2015, vacate the judgment and dismiss the
action, stating: “The parties have reached settlement whereby the indebtedness of Ms. Savitt to
[the bank] has been satisfied.” (emphasis supplied). On March 28, 2015, the bank executed a
release of the mortgage of Savitt’s property.
54.

Meanwhile, on January 26, 2015, Dean Rosenbach (“Rosenbach”) and the Law

Offices of Marshall E. Rosenbach substituted in as counsel for the Guardian (Savitt) and Mrs.

22

 Berkowitz in the Underlying Actions. Rosenbach is a personal friend of Savitt’s husband, Judge
Colin.
55.

Savitt and her counsel Rosenbach never attempted to understand the complexities,

difficulties encountered and overcome, or procedural postures of the Underlying Actions, the
funds still due and owing to Mrs. Berkowitz from the 321 and 311 Accounts, the various claims
asserted (including claims for attorney’s fees and costs incurred), the damages suffered by Mrs.
Berkowitz in addition to the loss of her savings, the roles the various parties (Lewis, PL Firm,
attorney Miller, and AmTrust/NYCB) played in causing same, the recoverability of such
damages, and the stated goal of Mrs. Berkowitz to “stop Lewis” from continuing to harm other
victims.
56.

Instead, Savitt and Rosenbach moved almost immediately to settle the Underlying

Actions for essentially whatever they could get without actually having to engage in litigation,
despite the extensive work completed by Millsaps and Solomon as predecessor counsel to
support Mrs. Berkowitz’s claims. Within two (2) weeks of his January 26, 2015 substitution of
counsel in the Underlying Actions, Rosenbach was engaged in discussions with counsel to set up
a face to face settlement conference during mid-February 2015.
57.

Settlement between the Guardian and Lewis, PL Firm, Miller, and NYCB (the

“Settlement”) was arranged in principal shortly thereafter and ultimately finalized during late
May or early June 2015.
58.

The Settlement failed Mrs. Berkowitz on many levels. After the total recovery of

$835,148.92 obtained by Millsaps and Solomon, Mrs. Berkowitz was still due $423,974.55 from
the $1,259,123.47 fraudulently obtained by Lewis and PL Firm. She also suffered out-of-pocket
expenses as damages including the $82,000 in additional federal income tax payable.

23

In

 addition, she had paid her counsel’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to pursue Ms. Lewis
and her confederates. All of these amounts were potentially recoverable in the Underlying
Actions.
59.

Nevertheless, the Settlement provided Mrs. Berkowitz with total disbursements of

only $261,000 ($100,000 and $161,000) – more than $85,000 less than the $347,244 previously
conceded to be due to Ms. Berkowitz by Lewis and the PL Firm. It was even less than the
$268,544.50 previously conceded by NYCB!
60.

The Settlement dismissed with prejudice the claims against not only Lewis, PL

Firm, and NYCB, but also against attorney Miller – without Miller having to pay so much as a
penny to Mrs. Berkowitz in settlement of the malpractice claim against him.
61.

Most shockingly, the Settlement allowed Lewis and PL Firm to obtain all of the

remaining funds in the 321 Account and 311 Account (together, the “Disputed Accounts”). In
the Interpleader Action, NYCB had taken the position that $92,916.93 of the commingled funds
in the 321 Account was “deposited for the benefit of PL clients other than Mrs. Berkowitz.”
This was the very reason why NYCB had maintained that Mrs. Berkowitz was entitled to only
$268,544.40 of the funds in the Disputed Accounts. In the Settlement, NYCB acknowledged
that it had “been notified of other possible claims by other third parties to funds held in the
Disputed Accounts.” Nevertheless, the Settlement provided: “NYCB shall unfreeze the amounts
remaining in the Disputed Accounts and allow [PL Firm] to withdraw all such amounts from the
Disputed Accounts.”
62.

Thus, the Settlement not only failed to effectuate Mrs. Berkowitz’s stated desire

to “stop Lewis,” but instead released her victims’ monies to Lewis to allow her to fund her
continued fraudulent operations.

24

 63.

In addition to their negligent handling of the Underlying Actions, Savitt and

Rosenbach never attempted to “find” the funds in excess of $400K that should have been
remaining in Mrs. Berkowitz’s accounts when Savitt took possession of such accounts.
64.

Instead, Savitt continues to racket up unnecessary fees for herself and her lawyer

by using Settlement money to fund specious and unnecessary litigation against Millsaps and
Solomon. Savitt’s complaint was so baseless that the Court ordered it dismissed in its entirety,
without prejudice, on February 8, 2016.
65.

Serious concerns have been raised about Savitt’s conduct as guardian, including

those raised in The Palm Beach Post’s investigative reporting series entitled “Guardianships: A
Broken Trust.”
66.

Petitioners have performed all conditions precedent, or they have occurred been

waived, or otherwise been excused.
COUNT I – REMOVAL OF SAVITT AS GUARDIAN
67.

Petitioners adopt by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this Count, the

following statements of this Third-Party Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 66.
68.

Pursuant to section 744.474(7), a guardian may be removed for the wasting,

embezzlement, or other mismanagement of the ward’s property.
69.

Here, Savitt has wasted, embezzled, and/or mismanaged the property of Mrs.

Berkowitz. Savitt has failed to account for or attempt to locate the funds in excess of $400K that
should have been remaining in Mrs. Berkowitz’s accounts when Savitt took possession of such
accounts. Savitt unnecessarily settled the valuable Underlying Actions on terms extremely
unfavorable to Mrs. Berkowitz. Inexplicably, capriciously, and/or suspiciously, Savitt settled all
claims against all Defendants in the Underlying Actions (“Defendants”) for far less than two (2)

25

 of such Defendants had previously offered and admitted that they indisputably owed to Mrs.
Berkowitz.
70.

Savitt jettisoned Mrs. Berkowitz’s valuable claims against all Defendants for

pennies on the dollar, apparently claiming it was necessary because Mrs. Berkowitz purportedly
had no money. Unfortunately for Mrs. Berkowitz, once the funds were obtained, Savitt has not
sought to cautiously preserve said funds, nor has Savitt pursued claims against such persons who
took the money that Millsaps and Solomon had recovered for Mrs. Berkowitz in the Underlying
Actions. Instead, Savitt has used Settlement money to enrich herself and her lawyer.
71.

Savitt should not be allowed to continue to waste what is left of the $261,000 in

funds from the unfortunate Settlement. It is time for Mrs. Berkowitz to have the benefit of a
professional guardian who does not have the baggage that Savitt has clouding her judgment.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners hereby request that the Court remove and replace Savitt as the
guardian of Mrs. Berkowitz, and order an accounting and transfer of property as required by
Florida Probate Rule 5.660.

Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Donna Greenspan Solomon
DONNA GREENSPAN SOLOMON
Florida Bar No.: 59110
Donna@SolomonAppeals.com
SOLOMON APPEALS, MEDIATION &
ARBITRATION
901 South Federal Hwy, Ste. 300
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: 561-762-9932
Webb Millsaps, Esq.
Florida Bar No: 0032414
webb@webmillsapslaw.com
WEBB MILLSAPS LAW FIRM, PA
160 West Camino Real, #190

26

 Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 900-7238
Fax: (866) 741-0009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via
filing through the Florida e-filing portal to Elizabeth Savitt, Savittguardians@gmail.com, on
February 13, 2016.
By: /s/ Webb Millsaps
WEBB MILLSAPS

27

  

Filing 37788256 E-Filed 02/13/2016 07:23:03 PM

Prestigious tife Care 
Summary of Bank Statement Activity {Account 
From'August 2012 Through December'2013?-

 

Notes
?Berkowitz relat?d
Deposigs 1,224,123
Return of monies {835,149}
388,974
Checks (79,386} 
lnter?st incdme 2,656 AH inIErest aliocated to Berkowitz memes
312,244
Deposit 155,800
Checks (141,523)
Debit memofc?hecks) (88)
14,189-
Bai?nca as beJEcemberBl, 2013 (pertabaye) 325,433 
Balance (per ?Monthiy? ta b) 326,433
Proof 0

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT I

M/Compel 002