Estate of Maher v. Iglikova

Estate of Maher v. Iglikova, -- So.2d -- (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), 2014 WL 1386660

This case centered around whether a minor child was a pretermitted child of the decedent.

The decedent had two children during his lifetime, but he did not become aware of the existence of his second child until that child was approximately three years old (after he executed his last will).  After becoming aware of the child's existence, the paternity of that child was confirmed.  Once paternity was established, the decedent began making child support payments and continued to make those payments until his death.

Upon his death, the child's mother filed her Petition to Determine Status as Pretermitted Child, Challenge Construction of Will and Determine Beneficiaries.  The mother of the decedent's other child filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the child was not a pretermitted child under F.S. 732.702 because (1) the child was not omitted from the will since she would take as part of a class gift to the decedent's children and (2) the child was not born or adopted after the execution of the will.

The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment and found the child to be pretermitted.

The Court reversed the trial court's opinion, basing its determination upon the plain language of F.S. 732.702.  It held that for a child to be pretermitted under F.S. 732.702, it must satisfy the following three requirements: (1) the child must be omitted from the will, (2) the child must have been born or adopted after the making of the will and (3) the child must not have received any part of the decedent's property equivalent to a child's part by way of advancement.  The Court held that the child was not a pretermitted child of the decedent for the following three reasons: (a) the child inherited through a class gift in the decedent's will, (b) the child was born before the will was executed and (c) a determination of paternity after the decedent's will was executed was not equivalent to an adoption after the decedent's will was executed

Comments

  1. Mark HarbisonJune 25, 2021 at 1:19 AM

    Wow! Thank you! I constantly wanted to write on my site something like that. Can I take a portion of your post to my website? Best real estate agent nyc service provider.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AsiaptySeptember 7, 2021 at 9:13 PM

    You've shared some excellent information about. property management company singapore I'm happy I came across this post because it contains a lot of useful information. Thank you for sharing this story.

    ReplyDelete

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