In re Estate of Maldonado

In re Estate of Maldonado, --- So.3d --- (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)

In this case, the former spouse of a decedent appealed an order directing the personal representative to distribute the estate's assets and close the estate.  The decedent and his ex-wife divorced in 1993 in Puerto Rico, but the Puerto Rico order dissolving the marriage did not distribute the spouses' marital assets.  When the decedent died in 2005, his son sought to probate his will in Florida.  At the same time, the ex-wife filed suit in Puerto Rico seeking an award of marital assets.  She ultimately received a judgment for one-half of the marital assets.  

In 2006, the ex-wife filed a motion to intervene in the probate proceedings and an affidavit explaining the Puerto Rico judgment and her claim against the estate.  In 2007, she again filed a renewed motion to intervene and statement of claim.  The decedent's son objected to the claim as untimely, and in 2010 the court entered an order striking the 2007 claim.  The personal representative then sought to close the estate and the ex-wife's counsel made no objection to the personal representative's request that the estate be distributed.  The court directed the personal representative to distribute the assets and close the estate.

The ex-wife then sought to appeal the closing of the estate, claiming that her 2006 claim was still pending.  The Court held that this argument was not preserved on appeal because she did not object to the personal representative's request  to distribute the assets and close the estate.  She also argued that the court reversibly erred in striking her 2007 statement of claim.  The Court rejected this argument, because she did not appeal the 2010 order striking her claim in a timely matter.

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