Mathis v. Estate of Mathis

Mathis v. Estate of Mathis, --- So.2d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), No. 3D14-2332

This case deals with the ability of a beneficiary to seek further administration of an estate pursuant to Florida Probate Rule 5.460.  The decedent executed a last will leaving her homestead property to her daughter.  The will also provided that if the property was sold for whatever reason, the proceeds from the sale would be divided and distributed among her daughter, her son, and her other children and grandchildren.

For ten years following the decedent's death, the son continued to live at the property. When a tax deed sale was imminent, the daughter filed a petition for administration and sought the appointment of a curator.  The son paid the outstanding property taxes to avoid the tax deed sale.  The curator filed a petition to determine homestead status and the trial court admitted the will to probate.  Once the trial court entered the order determining homestead status, the curator was discharged.  The daughter then sold the property, and the new owners attempted to evict the son.  The son filed a petition seeking subsequent administration, alleging that because his sister had sold the property, he was entitled to his percentage of the proceeds, as well as reimbursement for the property taxes he had paid.  The trial court denied his petition.

The Court reversed and held that pursuant to Florida Probate Rule 5.460(a), the son was entitled to seek subsequent administration of the estate to determine his interest in the estate and to effectuate the provision in the will entitling him to a percentage of the sale proceeds.  

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