Johnson v. Townsend

Johnson v. Townsend, 259 So.3d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)

This is an interesting decision about the intersection of community property law and Florida probate claims. The decision centers around whether a surviving spouse who is claiming an interest in purported community property must file a timely claim against the estate. The Court held that such a claim is a claim under the Florida Probate Code and that no exceptions exist to usurp the time deadlines for filing a claim in these types of proceedings.

Prior to the decedent's death, he acquired property with his wife while domiciled in Texas, a community property state. The property was titled solely in the decedent's name. Following the decedent's death, and after more than 3 months had passed since the notice to creditors was published and over two years had passed since the decedent's date of death, the wife filed a "Petition to Determine and Perfect Surviving Spouse's Community Property Interest in Estate Assets." The decedent's children moved to strike the Petition as untimely.

The wife made several interesting arguments about why the Petition should not be treated as a claim subject to the statutory guidelines. First, she argued under F.S. 732.223, a spouse's community property interest is not treated as a creditor claim and there is no stated deadline for filing a petition to perfect a community property interest. Second, she argued that the definition of a claim in F.S. 731.201(4) does not encompass a community property interest. Finally, she argued that even if her Petition were a claim, her community property interest fell into one of two exceptions to the statutory deadlines. She argued that she fell within the common law "trust exception" because even though the husband held the property in his own name, a resulting trust arose in her favor by implication of the community property laws, and as a result she did not have to file a claim to perfect title. She also argued that she fell within the "lien exception," because the vesting of her community property interest gave rise to an equitable lien which is excepted from the claim statutes.

The Court disagreed. It held that the wife's interest in the husband's estate was a liability of the decedent and thus subject to the claim statutes, and that claim was untimely, as it was after the three month period and the two year claim period.  It felt that neither the trust exception nor the lien exception were applicable. The trust exception has been limited to "express trust[s] or some other clearly defined means," which the Court felt did not exist here. The Court held that this was not a lien,  because it was not a duly recorded mortgage or security interest, nor was she in possession of the property. Finally, it disagreed that the community property statutes were not subject to the 2 year non-claim period in F.S. 733.310.


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