Rubin on Probate Litigation

  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...

Rose v. Sonson , 208 So.3d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) This decision deals with the ability of a child born out of wedlock to establish paternity in his putative father's intestate estate.  The result turned on an analysis of the history of paternity proceedings within the probate context.  Between the petitioner's birth in 1964 and 1986, only the mother of a child born out of wedlock could bring suit to establish paternity.  In 1986, F.S. 742.11 was changed to allow both putative children and fathers to bring suit to establish paternity and at the same time, F.S. 95.11(3)(b) was amended to impose a four year limit, running from the date the child reached the age of majority, to bring such an action.  In 2009, the four year statute of limitations was removed from F.S. 742.11 by way of an amendment to F.S. 732.108(2)(b), expressly eliminating the application of F.S.95.11(3)(b) to paternity adjudications when determining intestate succession in a probate ...