Lefkowitz v. Schwartz

Lefkowitz v. Schwartz, --- So.3d --- (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
This case revisits the applicability of the "trust exception" to creditors claims in a probate proceeding. Here, the creditor's claim was based upon money lent by the creditor to the decedent, which the decedent promised to repay upon the sale of certain real property. The real property was apparently sold prior to the decedent's death but the money was not repaid. Upon the decedent's death, the creditor filed a creditor's claim and in her independent action, she asked the trial court to find that the sale proceeds were held in a constructive trust for her benefit. On appeal, the Court reversed, holding that the "trust exception" did not apply, and that the creditor's claim was an ordinary creditor's claim and the proceeds of the sale were assets of the estate subject to Florida statutes governing the priority of claims.

The "trust exception" was based on the idea that assets held in trust should not be part of the decedent's estate, and was applied in cases where claimants asserted an equitable basis for ownership of certain property of the decedent. The exception is now limited to "those situations where the decedent clearly held the property on behalf of the actual owner by way of either an express trust or some other clearly defined means." Johnson v. Townsend, 259 So.3d 851, 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). The Court held that the exception did not apply here because the creditor was unquestionably pursuing a liability of the decedent that arose during his lifetime, for a debt owed. This made her a creditor of the decedent's estate, subject to the legislatively-imposed distribution scheme for creditors of an estate. The trial court should not have given her priority over claims of the same class to which her claim belonged by imposing a constructive trust based on conduct that occurred during the decedent's lifetime.

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