White v. Marks

 White  v. Marks, --- So. 3d --- (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)

This decision involves a strange set of facts under which a purported heir attempted to assert rights as a beneficiary and child of the decedent, even though she was neither the biological child of the decedent nor adopted by him. The decedent's will specifically provided that the decedent "intentionally made no provision under this will" for his "adopted daughter." This decision ultimately turned on whether (1) the statute of limitations to determine paternity had expired, and (2) whether certain writings were acknowledgements of paternity under F.S. 732.108(2). 

Even though the purported heir was not the biological child of the decedent or adopted by him, his name was listed as her father on her birth certificate. Apparently, her mother was pregnant with her when she met the decedent, and he agreed to be listed on her birth certificate so that she could avoid the social stigma attached to an out-of-wedlock birth. The mother and the decedent had a short relationship, and the purported heir only met the decedent twice as an adult, once in her early twenties and again before he died.

This dispute arose when the beneficiaries of the decedent's estate claimed that the purported heir did not have standing to contest his will. They argued that the statute of limitations to contest paternity had run. The trial court found that she had standing based on certain writings which it held were acknowledgments of paternity under F.S. 731.108(2)(c). The Appellate Court reversed.

F.S. 95.11(3)(b) contains a four year statute of limitations beginning when an individual reaches the age of majority for actions "relating" to paternity. The Court held that an action under F.S. 732.108(2)(c) (governing the intestate rights of adopted persons and persons born out of wedlock) is clearly an action "relating" to paternity such that the four year statute of limitations applied.

Further, the Court held that the three writings put forth by the purported heir as acknowledgments of paternity in writing by the father were not sufficient. It noted that the Florida Supreme Court had previously found that an informal writing could be sufficient to meet the requirement, but the writing must "directly, unequivocally and unquestionably acknowledge[s] the paternity of the illegitimate child." In re McCollum's Estate, 88 So. 2d 537, 540 (Fla. 1956).

The purported heir conceded that her birth certificate would not satisfy the requirement because it was not signed by the decedent. The Court held that neither of her two other writings, the decedent's will and a pocket planner, would be sufficient, and that the decedent's references to her as his "adopted daughter" were descriptive rather than direct, unequivocal acknowledgments of paternity.

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