DALE DIXON, ADMINISTRATOR AD LITEM OF THE ESTATE OF ALFONSO T. GLOVER, JR.

v.

MICHAEL J. GREEN, ROSA WRIGHT, RUTH RANDAL, DELORIS KIDD, ARLEAN BROOKINS, AND ANDREA TROUTMAN

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2024-2410 LT Case No. 2017-CP-001731 _____________________________

DALE DIXON, ADMINISTRATOR AD

LITEM of THE ESTATE of ALFONSO

T. GLOVER, JR.,

Appellant, v.

MICHAEL J. GREEN, ROSA

WRIGHT, RUTH RANDAL, DELORIS

KIDD, ARLEAN BROOKINS, and ANDREA TROUTMAN, Appellees. _____________________________ Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Thomas M. Beverly, Judge. Rosemary Shackelford, Clearwater, and Grayling Emanuel Brannon, of Law Offices of Grayling E. Brannon, P.A., for Appellant. Edward P. Jackson, of Edward P. Jackson, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee, Michael J. Green. No Appearance for Remaining Appellees. December 5, 2025

2

EDWARDS, J.

The primary issue in the underlying case is who will inherit a million dollars from a relative’s intestate estate. However, this appeal is about the probate court’s order disqualifying attorney Grayling E. Brannon1 from further participation in the underlying case, based upon a conflict of interest. Attorney Brannon initially represented a client claiming to be the nephew and sole heir of the decedent. However, after being unable to initially prove that relationship, Attorney Brannon began representing other relatives of the decedent and directly fought to defeat the claim of his first client, the nephew. We affirm the trial court’s detailed order granting the nephew’s motion to disqualify. Inheriting From a Rich Uncle

Uncle Alfonso Glover, Jr. (“the Decedent”) died intestate; he never married, had no children, and was predeceased by both his parents and Charles Glover—his brother and only sibling. Charles Glover married Sandra Glover in 1975 and remained wedded to her up until his death. In 1977, Charles Glover fathered a son, Michael Green (“Green”) out of wedlock. In the first phase of the probate case, Attorney Brannon represented Green, asserting that Green is the Decedent’s nephew and sole heir to inherit his uncle’s intestate estate.² See § 733.303(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017).

3 nephew.3 Thus, the positions of Green and the Cousins were directly and completely adverse to each other, as only one side would be entitled to inherit the Decedent’s intestate estate. As the probate court put it, the battle lines were thus drawn: Green vs. the Cousins. Attorney Brannon changed sides in the same case by first representing and then opposing Green’s claim. First Phase of Probate Litigation Because Green had been born out of wedlock and Charles Glover never formally acknowledged Green as his son, proving that Green was the Decedent’s nephew was challenging. Attorney Brannon sought an order from the probate court to designate Green as an heir and to exhume the body of Charles Glover in order to obtain DNA samples. Glover’s widow and the Cousins opposed exhumation. The probate court denied the motion, observing that no order would be needed if the widow later agreed to exhumation. Attorney Brannon took an appeal of that order to the First District Court of Appeal, where it was per curiam affirmed without a written opinion.⁴ Later Phases of Probate Litigation Later in this same probate case, Attorney Brannon represented one of the Decedent’s second cousins, James Glover, and another cousin, Andrea Troutman. Meanwhile, Green hired new counsel, Attorney Jackson, who convinced Glover’s widow to permit the exhumation of her late husband’s body. The DNA test results established a 99.99% probability that Green was Charles Glover’s son and thus was the Decedent’s nephew and sole heir. Attorney Jackson, on behalf of Green, filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that he should be declared the 3 The Cousins were initially represented only by Attorney Tassone.⁴ Green v. Kidd, 280 So. 3d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

6 considered Attorney Brannon’s representation of Ms. Green, additional evidence of Attorney Brannon’s coextensive representation of Green and his wife, and analyzed both under the conflict of interest rules found in the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and relevant case law. The probate court found there was an adverse interest between the Greens and the Cousins and entered a written order granting Green’s motion to disqualify Attorney Brannon from representing those adverse to Green. A timely appeal was taken by Appellant. Issues On Appeal

1.

Standing to Seek Attorney Brannon’s Disqualification Appellant asserts that Michael Green lacked standing to seek Attorney Brannon’s disqualification. “To have standing, a wouldbe litigant must show ‘a direct and articulable interest in the controversy, which will be affected by the outcome of the litigation.’” Bivins v. Douglas, 335 So. 3d 1214, 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting Cruz v. Cmty. Bank & Tr. of Fla., 277 So. 3d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)). Whether a party has standing is reviewed de novo. See Fox v. Pro. Wrecker Operators of Fla., Inc., 801 So. 2d 175, 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Putnam Cnty. Env’t Council, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Putnam Cnty., 757 So. 2d 590, 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)). Appellant claims Green is not an “interested person,” citing to section 731.201(23), Florida Statutes (2024), which defines an interested person as “any person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the particular proceeding . . . .” Given Green’s claim and the probate court’s ruling that he is the sole heir of the Decedent’s estate, he certainly qualifies as an “interested person.” It is difficult to conceive of anybody having a stronger claim of standing than a former client seeking to prevent his attorney from representing other clients, whose interests are directly adverse to his, in the same proceeding. 2. Was Disqualification an Abuse of Discretion? “The standard of review for orders entered on motions to disqualify counsel is that of an abuse of discretion.” Kemp Invs. N., LLC v. Englert, 314 So. 3d 734, 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (quoting

10 asserts that this was an abuse of discretion. However, Appellant provides no case law in support of his position and offers only conclusory statements that striking Attorney Brannon-filed pleadings adverse to Green during the past five years would create a “devastating burden” on his newer clients. Conclusory arguments are insufficient for purposes of appeal and should be deemed waived. See State v. Town of Sweetwater, 112 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1959); Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So. 2d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Thus, Appellant waived this issue. Referral to The Florida Bar Canon 3D of Florida’s Code of Judicial Conduct states, in part: (2) A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar shall take appropriate action. Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 3D. Based on the probate court’s finding that Attorney Brannon changed sides, “has abandoned his client and taken up the cause of his client’s adversaries, the Cousins,” and our review of the entire record, we conclude that there is a substantial likelihood that Attorney Brannon violated one or more Florida Bar rules regarding conflicts of interest. This Court finds that the action appropriate to take here is to make a referral of Attorney Grayling Brannon to The Florida Bar. Accordingly, we order our Clerk of the Court to forward a copy of: this opinion, the probate court’s disqualification order, and the parties’ briefs to The Florida Bar for its consideration and such action as it deems appropriate.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, J., concurs. KILBANE, J., concurs in result only.

11 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________