SECURITY INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT,
v.
ESTATE OF JERRY E. STILLSON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a joint motion to authorize compromise and settlement of estate claims, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing authorization under section 733.708.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying authorization of a compromise and settlement of estate claims under section 733.708, Florida Statutes.
[1] A personal representative may avoid liability for a compromise by obtaining a statutory order of authorization under section 733.708, but failure to secure such order doe…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSecurity Insurance Company and the Estate of Jerry E. Stillson jointly moved for court authorization to compromise and settle estate claims.…
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 Estate Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order denying the parties’ joint motion to authorize a compromise and settlement of estate claims; we affirm the order appealed.
Section 733.708, Florida Statutes, is the applicable statute relating to compromise of estate claims, and provides that:
... [T]he court may enter an order authorizing the compromise if satisfied the compromise will be for the best interest of the beneficiaries. The order shall relieve the personal representative of liability or responsibility for the compromise. ...
The personal representative may thus avoid liability for a compromise by obtaining the statutory order of authorization. The failure to secure such an order does not preclude a compromise however, the personal representative remains subject to the possibility of liability. See Evans v. Tucker, 101 Fla. 688, 135 So. 305 (1931). The statute vests the trial court with discretion, and we conclude that in the circumstances of the present ease the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to authorize the proposed compromise and settlement. We also note that while the judge orally advised the parties regarding his view of the course of action which they should take, this advice was not incorporated into the order and is not properly a matter for appellate review.
The order appealed is affirmed.
SHIVERS, J., and LILES, WOODIE A. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heinrich Buettner v. Est. OF Luise Buettner, 993 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ment between the Estate of Luise Buettner and Susan Cerny, a judgment creditor of the estate. We affirm, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving the compromise of Cerny’s claim. See Sec. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Stillson, 397 So. 2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (a court’s decision to approve the compromise of a claim against an estate is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Affirmed. WARNER, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.…
-
In re The Est. OF Jorge Luis Arroyo, Jr. v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., 211 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…sentative obtains a court order approving the compromise. "The failure to secure such an order does not preclude a compromise however, the personal representative remains subject to the possibility of liability.” Sec. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Stillson, 397 So. 2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (emphasis added). Thus, in addition to the fact that this argument was not raised by the parties either below qr on* appeal, this argument is unavailing on the merits.…
-
Carlton v. Carlton, 578 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…entatives still may proceed with the compromise; however, they will be liable for their actions if the accelerated payments do not leave sufficient assets in the estate to pay the other same-class claims. See Security Ins. Co. v. Estate of Stillson, 397 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Padgett Lumber Co. v. Hodges, 101 Fla. 688 (Fla. 1931)