Rubin on Probate Litigation

Soriano v. Estate of Manes , 177 So.3d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), 2015 WL 5965203) This decision centered around whether a potential civil claimant arising out of a pending criminal prosecution was a "reasonably ascertainable creditor" entitled to personal service of the notice to creditors.  The Court ultimately held that the claimant was not a reasonably ascertainable creditor, because the personal representative has no actual knowledge of the claimant's civil claim, nor would a more diligent search have revealed the existence of the claim. Four months after the notice to creditors was published, the claimant filed her statement of claim alleging that she had a claim against the estate based upon an imminent private tort action against the decedent stemming from a criminal charge.  She argued that her statement of claim was timely filed because she was a reasonably ascertainable creditor, since she presented evidence showing that she was the victim of an alleged m

Delbrouck v. Eberling , 177 So.3d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), 2015 WL 5948724 In this case, one of the sons of the decedent claimed a constructive trust over certain properties titled in the name of the decedent.  The personal representative moved to compel the son to surrender to her the properties and to cease his business activities on the properties.  This decision dealt with whether the probate court was required to hear evidence before directing the son to turn over possession of the property to the personal representative. The personal representative relied on F.S. 733.607(1), which states that "The request by a personal representative for delivery of any property possessed by a beneficiary is conclusive evidence that the possession of the property by the personal representative is necessary for the purposes of administration, in any action against the beneficiary for possession of it."  The Court found that this statute does not mean a personal representative'

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 stamped the will.  The testator