Perelman v. Perelman

Perelman v. Perelman, 2013 WL 5807358

It is not uncommon here in South Florida for cases to arise that center around disputes about where the decedent was domiciled at their death, given how many retirees move here at the end of their lives.  This case centered around a will contest between a son, arguing that his mother was a domicile of Pennsylvania, and a husband, arguing that his wife was a domicile of Florida.  

The issue on appeal centered around whether the Florida trial court should have stayed the Florida proceeding under the principle of priority.  The "principle of priority" is the idea that the court which first exercises its jurisdiction acquires exclusive jurisdiction to proceed with this case.  It is not a mandatory principle, however absent extraordinary circumstances, it is an abuse of discretion to fail to respect the principle of priority.

The Court explained that the exercise of jurisdiction by the foreign court will trigger priority.  It emphasized the idea that, "The ball is rolling, so to speak, and will not be stopped until the court issues an order or the plaintiff dismisses the lawsuit."  In re Guardianship of Morrison, 972 So.2d 905, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).  So when does a foreign court exercise its jurisdiction?  Within the state, the Florida courts have held that a court exercises its jurisdiction when service is perfected.  But when dealing with a foreign court, the Court held that it must look at the law of the foreign jurisdiction to determine when the court exercised its jurisdiction.

Here, the Court held that Pennsylvania first exercised jurisdiction when it issued a notice to the husband's counsel stating that the wife's Pennsylvania will would be probated unless he filed a formal caveat.  Since the "ball was rolling" in Pennsylvania at that point, which was before the husband filed his Florida petition, Pennsylvania exercised its jurisdiction first.  

As mentioned above, since the principle of priority is not mandatory, the Court then had to consider whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to respect the Pennsylvania proceeding.  Since the trial court did not make a finding of extraordinary circumstances that would justify refusing to apply the principle of priority, nor that the Pennsylvania proceeding would cause undue delay, the decision was remanded for the trial court to issue a stay pending the resolution of the Pennsylvania probate proceeding.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Goodstein v. Goodstein ,  263 So.3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository. Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order. Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions a...
Read more

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Malleiro v. Mori , 182 So.3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) This case serves as a lesson in rarely used words buried in the Florida Probate Code.  The Court was asked to determine whether an unsigned notarial will executed in Argentina was a valid will under the Florida Probate Code.  The Court ultimately held that because the Argentine will was unsigned, even though it was a notarial will, it was a noncupative will prohibited by the Florida Probate Code. The testator executed a valid will in New York distributing her real and personal property located in the United States.  Four months later, she executed a second will in Argentina.  The Argentine will was not executed with the usual formalities of American wills.  Instead, the testator orally pronounced her testamentary wishes to a notary who transcribed them in the presence of three witnesses.  The testator orally approved the typewritten will in the presence of the witnesses, and the notary signed and st...
Read more

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell , --- So.3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) This decision involves an appeal of a trial court's order striking a claim as untimely. The claimant argued that his claim was timely because he was a reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with notice. The Court disagreed. The claimant argued that the estate should have known about his claim based on several conversations he had with the personal representative and the personal representative's attorneys. He was claiming an ownership interest in the decedent's real property because he paid for the property and paid the mortgage premiums over 20 years prior to the decedent's death for a 5 year period of time while he has in a relationship with the decedent. In his calls to the personal representative, the claimant apparently only mentioned that he had left some car parts in the garage and never said anything about an ownership interest in the property. He argued that he inquired, ...
Read more