IN RE ESTATE OF CATHERINE W. UTLEY, DECEASED
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, not pursued within one year of filing, is barred by statute, and the personal representative did not waive this defense.
[1] A claim against an estate that is not paid, settled, or otherwise disposed of, and for which no enforcement proceeding is pending, is forever barred one year after it is…
[2] A trial court cannot create an exception to a statutory bar of claims against an estate where the statute itself does not provide for such an exception.
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 intelligenceAppellee filed a claim against an estate based on an unmatured promissory note. No proceeding was filed to enforce the claim within one year of its fi…
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.
The personal representative appeals on order requiring him to pay appellee’s $5,000 claim against the estate predicated upon an unmatured promissory note. Appellant contends that the claim was barred by Section 733.709, Florida Statutes (1977). We reverse.
Section 733.709 provides:
733.709 Claims undisposed of after 1 year — When a person has filed a claim against an estate and the claim has not been paid, settled, or otherwise disposed of and no proceeding is pending for the enforcement or compulsory payment of it at the expiration of 1 year from the date the claim was filed, the claim shall be forever barred. No action shall thereafter be brought to enforce it. This section shall not affect the lien of any duly recorded mortgage or security interest or the lien of any person .in possession of personal property or the right to foreclose and enforce the mortgage or lien, (emphasis added).
It is undisputed that no such proceeding was pending one year after appellee’s claim was filed.
The trial court was of the opinion that this section did not apply to appellee’s claim and, alternatively, that even if it did apply, the personal representative, waived the right to assert it.
We find that appellee’s claim fell within the purview of this section. The trial court cannot create an exception where the statute does not. In Re: Brown’s Estate, 117 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1960). See also In Re: Estate of Perlman, 381 So. 2d 248, (Fla. 4th DCA, Nov. 28, 1979).
As to the waiver claim (which was actually an estoppel argument), the evidence was insufficient to establish that any conduct of the personal representative or his agents wrongfully induced the appellee to believe that an adjustment of his claim would be made, so as to lull him into failing to properly preserve it. North v. Culmer, 193 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). See also Adams v. Hackensack Trust Company, 156 Fla. 20, 22 So. 2d 392 (1945); Davis v. Evans, 132 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 1961) cert. den. 136 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1961).
Accordingly, the order is reversed.
DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Evans, 132 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- In re Est. of Daniel Emmitt Brown v. Robinson, 117 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1960)
- North v. Leome Culmer, 193 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Adams v. THE Hackensack Tr. Co. for Anna E. Ely, 156 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1945)
- Brooks v. State, 136 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1961)
- Evans v. Slay, 136 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1961)
- In re the Est. of Rubin Perlman, 381 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Adams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 381 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)