IN RE THE ESTATE OF BERTHA L. WILLIAMS, 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 affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to strike a creditor's claim for funeral expenses filed after the statutory deadline. The court held that funeral expenses incurred after the decedent's death are not subject to the nonclaim statute requiring claims to be filed within three months of notice of administration, since that statute only applies to claims arising before death.
Funeral expenses incurred after the decedent's death are not subject to the nonclaim statute. Section 733.702(1)(a) limits its operation to claims arising before the decedent's death, and although Section 731.201(4) defines claims as including funeral expenses, the more specific provisions of Section 733.702(1)(a) control and exempt post-death funeral expenses from the three-month filing requirement.
[1] Funeral expenses incurred subsequent to the decedent's death are not subject to the nonclaim statute requiring claims to be filed within three months of the first publica…
[2] A general definitional statute does not control over a more specific statute when interpreting statutory provisions.
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 intelligence“No claim or demand against the decedent's estate that arose before the death of the decedent . . . shall be binding on the estate . . . unless presented . . . [within 3 months from the time of the first publication of the notice of administration”
The controlling statute that limits the nonclaim requirement to claims arising before death, not after
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBertha L. Williams died and her estate was probated in Charlotte County, Florida. Notice of administration was properly published with a deadline of F…
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 Funeral Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
The personal representative of the estate of Bertha. L. Williams appeals from the lower court’s denial of a motion to strike the claim of a creditor contending the trial court erred when it held funeral expenses herein were not subject to the nonclaim statute. We disagree with the personal representative’s argument, and affirm the decision of the trial court.
Bertha L. Williams died and her estate was probated in Charlotte County, Florida. Notice of administration was properly published, and the last day for filing claims under Section 733.702(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), was February 18, 1978. Leroy Whitley, however, filed a statement of claim for funeral expenses on August 14, 1978. The personal representative made a motion to strike the claim of Whitley, which was denied by the trial court.
The thrust of the personal representative’s argument is that there is an inherent conflict between Section 733.702(1)(a) and Section 731.201(4), Florida Statutes (1977). The personal representative seeks to have this court interpret those two sections in a manner which would require the filing of claim for funeral expenses within three months of the time of the first publication of the notice of administration. We decline to accept this interpretation.
Section 733.702(l)(a) provides:
No claim or demand against the decedent’s estate that arose before the death of the decedent . . . shall be binding on the estate . . . unless presented . . . [wjithin 3 months from the time of the first publication of the notice of administration [emphasis added]
While it is true that Section 731.201(4) defines claims as including funeral expenses, this section should not control. Section 731.201(4) is a general definitional section which is not determinative of the present controversy in view of the more specific provisions contained in Section 733.-702(1)(a). The latter statute clearly limits its operation to claims which arose before the death of the decedent. While in some instances certain funeral expenses might possibly arise before the death of the decedent and thus be subject to Section 733.-702(1)(a), the more common situation is that reflected on the present appeal where the funeral expenses were incurred subsequent to the death of the decedent. Twomey v. Clausohm, 234 So. 2d 338 (Fla.1970), is not applicable to the present appeal since it was based upon the 1965 version of the nonclaim statute which was not limited to claims or demands arising before the death of the decedent.
Since the more specific provisions of Section 733.702(1)(a) control the present appeal, the trial court properly denied the motion to strike the claim of Whitley for funeral expenses.
AFFIRMED.
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re The Est. OF Wilbur E. Kulow, 439 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…y argued on this appeal and because a resolution of this question will control that issue in the litigation now pending in the civil division, we will decide the point on the merits in order to enhance judicial economy. Cf. In re Estate of Williams, 381 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), in which this court affirmed the probate judge’s refusal to strike an untimely claim on the premise that the nature of the demand was not such as to be encompassed by the claim filing requirements of section 733.702(1). The Flor…
Authorities Cited
- Twomey v. Clausohm, 234 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1970)