Baden v. Baden, et al

Baden v. Baden, et al, --- So.3d --- (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

Ordinarily, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his or her action pursuant to FRCP 1.420(a)(1) at any time before a hearing on motion for summary judgment. In this case, the Plaintiff tried to dismiss certain trust litigation subsequent to a settlement agreement, but the trial court refused to grant his dismissal and attempted to retain jurisdiction over the subject trust. Ultimately, the Court found that the trial court erred and had no basis for not accepting the Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal.

The Defendants had two arguments about why the voluntary dismissal should be rejected. First, they argued that F.S. 736.0201 gives the trial court discretion to maintain ongoing jurisdiction over trust actions and that jurisdiction applied here where a prior court order had been entered authorizing the court to retain jurisdiction over the trust as part of a settlement. The Court disagreed. It found F.S. 736.0201 unambiguous in that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply to trust actions (but for three exceptions which were not relevant here). The Court held that the trial court had attempted to add an additional exception, not enumerated in F.S. 736.0201, to the mandatory application of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, based on the language of F.S. 736.0201(3) which states that "[a] trust is not subject to continuing judicial supervision unless ordered by the court." The Court felt that such an additional exception would render the actual exceptions provided in the statute meaningless. It held that F.S. 736.0201(3) merely provides the trial court the discretion to continue supervision of a trust, but does not nullify F.S. 736.0201(1)'s mandate as to the applicability of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Defendants also argued that the language in FRCP 1.420(a)(1) which states that a plaintiff may dismiss a lawsuit without an order of the court "[e]xcept in actions in which property has been seized or is in the custody of the court" applied here to prevent the dismissal. The Court held that the phrase "custody of the court" only means assets actually deposited in the court registry, not trust assets over which the court has issued orders.

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