Winslow v. Deck

Winslow v. Deck, 225 Fla.2d DCA 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)

This decision centers on technical pleading requirements and a trial court's unwillingness to allow a party to amend their pleading to comply with those rules.  Specifically, this decision deals with the dismissal of a counterpetition for administration as untimely pursuant to F.S. 733.212(8), which gives interested persons 3 months to contest the validity of a will, among other things.  The Court reversed the trial court's dismissal.

The decedent in this case left two competing wills- one leaving his assets to his two children, the other leaving his assets to his friend.  His daughter petitioned to have the first will admitted to probate and was appointed as personal representative.  Later, the friend filed the second will, with an emergency petition to revoke the daughter's letters of administration, a counterpetition for administration, an objection to the daughter's petition for appointment as personal representative, and a declaration that the proceeding was adversary.  Notably, she failed to file any pleading asking that the first will be revoked.  The court upheld the letters of administration issued under the first will.

A year later, the daughter moved to dismiss the friend's counterpetition with prejudice, arguing that the friend lacked standing to contest the first will.  She stated that after receiving notice that the decedent's estate would be administered according to the first will, she had three months to object to the probate of the first will, and despite her numerous pleadings, she failed to do so.  The court agreed, dismissing the counterpetition with prejudice.

The Court reversed, finding that trial courts should not prevent a petitioner from challenging a will because of a technical defect in the petitioner's pleading without allowing for a reasonable opportunity to amend.  It noted that while the friend's pleadings were not models of clarity, they were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, because it was clear from the allegations contained in those filings that she sought to revoke the probate of the first will and admit the second will. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 stamped the will.  The testator
Read more

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

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, &quo
Read more