Golden v. Jones

Golden v. Jones, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D2259a

The debate about the timeliness of a creditor's claim filed by a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor after the three-month period following publication of notice to creditors continues!

As you may know, the First and Second Districts in the Lubee and Morgenthau decisions have held that even a reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with a notice to creditors is required to file a claim within the publication period of three months.  Under this line of thought, whether a creditor was reasonably ascertainable is immaterial.

On the other hand, the Fourth District, in Puzzo, has held that any claims of known or reasonably ascertainable creditors, though filed after the three-month period following publication of notice of administration, should not be stricken as untimely if filed prior to the earlier of 30 days after service of notice of administration or two years after the decedent's death.  As a result, the Court in this case remanded to determine whether a creditor was a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor.  It held that if it was a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor, then the creditor's claim, though filed after the three month period, should not have been stricken as untimely if filed prior to the earlier of 30 days after service of notice of administration or 2 years after the decedent's death.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Howard v. Howard

Anderson v. McDonough

MonarchCare, Inc. v. Guardianship of Block