GEORGE FELDAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID E. GOODMAN AND RACHEL GOODMAN; ALBERT FELDAN AND BESS FELDAN, APPELLEES
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.
George Feldan appeals the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of his petition to revoke the discharge of executors and reopen estate administration to address alleged malfeasance, fraud, and misappropriation by executors and trustees. The appellate court reverses as to the executors, allowing the petition to proceed, but affirms the dismissal as to the trustees while modifying it to be without prejudice.
The court reversed the dismissal as to the executors, holding that allegations of fraud regarding failure to account for estate assets and misappropriation should have been considered in the probate proceeding and allowed to proceed. The court affirmed the dismissal as to the trustees but modified it to be without prejudice, allowing Feldan to file an independent complaint under the relevant statute.
[1] A petition alleging fraud and malfeasance by estate executors may be considered within the original probate proceeding.
[2] Dismissal of a petition seeking an accounting from trustees should be without prejudice to allow for an independent complaint.
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“The fraud alleged as to the estate proceeding was the failure to account for assets of the estate and a misappropriation of funds of the estate without the knowledge of the principal beneficiary of the testamentary trust. Therefore this action should have been considered in the original probate proceeding.”
Establishes that fraud claims regarding estate administration belong in probate proceedings and should not be dismissed outright.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA testamentary trust was established in late 1971 with Feldan as life beneficiary. On January 16, 1973, after Feldan and the executors waived a final …
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 Malfeasance cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of two orders of the trial court which dismissed with prejudice, as to all appellees, the petitioner’s petition for revocation of order discharging executors to reopen administration of estate, for trust accounting, and other relief.
In late 1971 a testamentary trust, created under a will, was established with the appellant as life beneficiary of that trust. The trust was funded from the residuary estate assets. On January 16, 1973, after the executors and the appellant had waived a final accounting, the trial court entered an order of discharge of the executors. On or about April 29, 1983, the appellant filed in the probate court a petition styled “petition for revocation of order discharging executors to reopen administration of estate, for trust accounting, and other relief.” The basis of the petition was allegations of malfeasance, conflict of interest and fraud on the part of the executors and on the part of the appellees Albert and Bess Feldan as trustees. The appellees moved to dismiss the petition alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and that the action is barred by the statute of limitations as the action was not brought within one year from date of discharge of the executors. Sections 95.031(2) and 95.11(3), Florida Statutes and Section 734.23 (now section 733.901), Florida Statutes. After hearing on the motions the trial court entered the two orders appealed herein dismissing the petition, as to all the appellees, with prejudice.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in entering the orders appealed on the grounds, first that his petition alleged facts which would necessitate further administration of the estate under Section 734.26, Florida Statutes (1971) and Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedures 5.460 and second, the trial court should have preserved the appellant’s right to proceed against the trustees on the trust related causes in the proper tribunal rather than dismissing the trust related causes of action with prejudice.
The fraud alleged as to the estate proceeding was the failure to account for assets of the estate and a misappropriation of funds of the estate without the knowledge of the principal beneficiary of the testamentary trust. Therefore this action should have been considered in the original probate proceeding. See Dacus v. Blackwell, 90 So. 2d 324 (Fla.1956).
The dismissal of the petition seeking an accounting1 from the trustees may have been appropriate but the dismissal should have been without prejudice thereby permitting the petitioner to file an independent complaint pursuant to section 737.205 of the Florida Statutes. Therefore we modify this dismissal to make it without prejudice. The orders under review as they relate to that portion of the petition directed to the executors, be and the same is hereby reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court, probate division, for further proceedings.2 The portion of the order under review relating to the trustees of the testamentary trust be and the same is affirmed as above modified.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part as modified.
. Section 737.303(4) Florida Statutes provides for an annual accounting to be rendered by the trustees.
. If, from the evidence, it is shown that the petitioner was aware at the time he waived his right to a final accounting of the alleged defalcation claim in his petition against the executor, then he should not be accorded relief. See and compare Davis v. Davis, 123 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Karlis Guntis Fritsevich v. In re Est. OF Lydia Voss, 590 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…r limitation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), providing for relief from judgment, does not apply. See Arrieta-Gimenez v. Arrieta-Negron, 551 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1989); Whitman v. Whitman, 532 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Feldan v. Goodman, 460 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375, 378-79 (Fla.1984) (no time limitation under Rule 1.540(b) where extrinsic fraud prevents a party from having an opportunity to present his case in court); Val Bostwick v. Cowan’s Esta…
-
Payette v. Clark, 559 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…, they constitute fraud upon the court, to which the one-year limitation of rule 1.540(b) does not apply. Arrieta-Gimenez v. Arrieta-Negron, 551 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1989);1 Whitman v. Whitman, 532 So. 2d [*634] 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Feldan v. Goodman, 460 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Second, the petition can be maintained under section 733.903, Florida Statutes (1987).2 Estate of Lewin v. Marksbury, 374 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); see also Fla.P.R. 5.460. We reverse the order of the trial court dismissing c…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Davis, 123 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Dacus v. Blackwell, 90 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1956)