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introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order.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 as personal representative of their father's estate, so they asked the court to require a restricted depository. They argued that a restricted depository should be required (1) based on the local policy requiring all estates to have restricted depositories, and (2) because the beneficiaries had concerns about the personal representative's marshaling and expenditure of estate assets, as well as the litigious nature of the case. The trial court agreed.

Probate courts are given the discretion to require restricted depositories pursuant to F.S. 69.031. That statute provides two situations in which a restricted depository may be used: (1) when the size of the bond required of the administrator is burdensome or (2) for "other cause." The Court held that the record showed that the trial court had sufficient "other cause" to require the restricted depository, based on the size of the estate, the general goals of the local policy to preserve the assets and encourage efficient administration, the fact that the beneficiaries and the trial court did not know how the assets were being spent, and the tension between the personal representative and the beneficiaries. The Court did, however, admonish the trial court for the blanket policy of requiring restricted depositories in all cases, and found that "other cause" must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Comments

  1. HamzaMarch 15, 2019 at 1:37 AM

    palm beach gutter Company

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJanuary 17, 2022 at 7:53 AM

    20 No Deposit Casino Bonuses 2021 | Play With $10 Free No Deposit 메리트카지노 메리트카지노 カジノ シークレット カジノ シークレット 838LACbet: LAC BET | LACBET.COM

    ReplyDelete

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 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