ABRAHAM L. PIERCE, A/K/A ABE L. PIERCE AND DELORES PIERCE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, FOR THE ESTATE OF VERUS PIERCE, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, A LOUISIANA BANKING CORPORATION, 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.
In this mortgage foreclosure action, the appellate court reversed the judgment against Delores Pierce as personal representative of Verus Pierce's estate, holding that the trial court erred in denying leave to file a supplemental affidavit defense based on the bank's failure to timely file a claim against the estate under Florida probate law. The court affirmed the judgment against Abraham Pierce.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion for leave to file supplemental affirmative defenses. The late filing of the statutory defense did not prejudice American because it could have proven timely filing if one had been made, and judgment should not be entered against the estate without allowing the personal representative to assert this defense.
[1] A motion for leave to file supplemental affirmative defenses should be granted when the proposed defenses do not prejudice the opposing party and raise a potentially vali…
[2] A creditor must file a claim against a decedent's estate within three months after the initial publication of the notice of administration to have a valid claim.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Pursuant to § 733.702(l)(a), American has no valid claim against Verus's estate if it did not file a claim against her estate within three months after the initial publication of the notice of administration.”
Establishes the statutory bar to American's claim against the estate for failure to timely file.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Bank & Trust Company filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against Abraham and Verus Pierce on April 24, 1980. Verus died on March 6, 1981. …
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 Suggestion Of Death cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Delores Pierce, as personal representative of the estate of Verus Pierce, and Abraham L. Pierce appeal a final judgment entered pursuant to a directed verdict in favor of American Bank & Trust Company (American). Appellants contend, inter alia, the trial judge erred in denying their motion for leave to file supplemental affirmative defenses. The judgment is affirmed as to Abraham and reversed as to Delores, as personal representative of Verus’s estate.
American filed a complaint to foreclose a mortgage against Abraham and Verus on April 24,1980. Verus died on March 6,1981 and a suggestion of death and motion to substitute personal representative were served on April 30,1981. The court’s order substituting Delores as personal representative and an order authorizing American to file a second amended complaint were entered on June 1,1981. It is alleged Delores, as personal representative of Verus’s estate, first published a notice of administration on June 12, 1981. See § 733.212, Fla.Stat. If this allegation is true, the three-month period for the filing of claims under § 733.702, Fla.Stat. ran on September 12, 1981. The appellants answered the second amended complaint on July 7, 1981, some 67 days before the alleged time for filing of claims expired in the probate proceedings. The appellants filed a motion for leave to file supplemental affirmative defenses on August 19, 1982, which was denied on August 20, 1982.
The second amended complaint was an action upon the note only and the mortgage foreclosure was abandoned. Accordingly, pursuant to § 733.702(l)(a), American has no valid claim against Verus’s estate if it did not file a claim against her estate within three months after the initial publication of the notice of administration.
The late filing of the affirmative defense that the claim is barred by § 733.702 does not prejudice American because even on such short notice it could have proved the timely filing of a claim if a claim was filed. If a claim was not timely filed and is barred under the statute, a judgment should not be entered against the estate as this would require further litigation by the parties if American attempted to enforce the judgment. The trial court should have granted the motion for leave to file supplemental affirmative defenses.
The judgment against Delores, as personal representative of Verus’s estate, is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court with leave to the personal representative to file an affirmative defense alleging American failed to timely file a claim against the estate. The judgment against Abraham L. Pierce is affirmed.
ERVIN, THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. Jassy, 436 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…is order of dismissal is, therefore, AFFIRMED. GRIMES and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur. . See generally Fenn & Koren, The 1974 Florida Probate Code — A Marriage of Convenience, 27 U.Fla.L.Rev. 1 (Fall 1974). . Cf., Pierce v. American Bank & Trust Co., 433 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1983).…
-
Lasater v. Leathers, 475 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…to reach that result in view of the clear language of the statute. Other courts have reached the same result under similar facts. See Gates Learjet Corporation v. Moyer, 459 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Pierce v. American Bank & Trust Company, 433 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Koschmeder v. Griffin, 386 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We, too, wonder why the legislature imposed an additional burden upon a creditor who is already litigating his claim against a defendant (or, as in this case, a counter…
-
Burns D. Coley, Jr. v. Est. OF Edward Mason Odom, 500 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ppellants are barred from asserting claims against Odom’s estate. See, Gates Learjet Corp. v. Moyer, 459 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. den., sub nom Bass Aviation, Inc. v. Moyer, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1985); Pierce v. American Bank & Trust Co., 433 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Therefore, we find that the dismissals below were proper. AFFIRMED. WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.…