HAROLD M. UNGER, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
ARNOLD D. HESSEN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARTIN B. GOTTLIEB, DECEASED, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a claim against an estate is automatically barred if no action is taken to enforce it within three years of filing, regardless of whether an objection was filed.
[1] A claim filed against an estate is forever barred and foreclosed if no proceeding is commenced for its enforcement or payment within three years from the date the claim i…
[2] The purpose of filing an objection to a claim against an estate is to shorten the time within which a claimant must commence a proceeding to enforce the claim.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Unger filed a claim for medical services against a deceased's estate. Six years later, the personal representative moved to strike the claim. No p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim Against Estate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dr. Unger appeals a trial court’s order striking his claim for payment for medical services.
In 1972, after the death of a Mr. Gottlieb, the Doctor filed a claim in the estate for medical services rendered to the deceased. Six years later, the personal representative filed a motion to strike certain claims of creditors, which included the claim of Dr. Unger. The statute in effect at the time of the filing of the claim in this matter was Section 733.211, Florida Statutes (1971), which read in part as follows:
“(1) Whenever anyone shall have filed a claim against any estate in any probate proceedings in this state, in accordance with this chapter, and which claim has not had objection filed thereto or has not been paid, settled or otherwise disposed of and no proceeding is pending for the enforcement or compulsory payment thereof, then at the expiration of three years from the date such claim is filed such claim shall be forever barred and foreclosed and have no further force or effect and no proceeding or action shall thereafter ever be brought for enforcement or payment of same. . .
No proceeding having been commenced within the three-year period of the statute, the claim expired.
The appellant argues that because no objection was filed pursuant to Section 783.18(2), Florida Statutes (1971), the claim was admitted by the personal representative and, therefore, was an obligation of the estate. We disagree.
The purpose of the objection, under Section 733.18(2), Florida Statutes (1971) is to shorten the time within which a proceeding must be commenced. If no objection (as the statute existed in 1972), the claimant had three years to commence a proceeding if he did not receive payment; if an objection, his time was “, . . [Ljimited to two calendar months from the date of such service [of objection] within which to bring appropriate suit, action or proceedings upon such claim or demand. . . . ”
Therefore, the order under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Est. OF Richard Klotz v. Pike, 394 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…(1979). The order also does not reflect whether the court intended only the question of damages to be determined in that hearing or whether the question of liability was also to be resolved. The purpose of an objection as stated in Unger v. Hessen, 373 So. 2d 954 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), is to shorten the time within which a proceeding must be commenced. Therefore the requirement that appellant file an objection was an empty exercise and would accomplish nothing because the suit which the objection would precipita…