IN RE THE ESTATE OF HENRY EISENBERG, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari, finding that a probate court departed from the essential requirements of the Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure by measuring the objection period from the date of filing with the clerk rather than from the date of service of notice on interested persons.
The probate court departed from the essential requirements of law by altering the plain and unambiguous requirement that the objection period commence from the date of service of notice to interested persons, not the date of filing with the clerk. The court was required to ensure full compliance with rule 5.345 and allow Porter to file objections within 30 days from the date of service of notice upon her.
[1] A probate court departs from the essential requirements of law when it enforces an order that conflicts with the Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure.
[2] The time period for objecting to an interim accounting begins on the date of service of notice of the filing, not the date of filing with the clerk.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 personal representative shall serve notice of the filing and a copy of the interim accounting on all interested persons. The notice shall state that it is an application for the approval of the accounting and shall notify the person served that any objection to the accounting, or any item thereof, stating the basis for the objection, must be filed in writing within 30 days after service of notice or the interim accounting shall be approved as filed.”
The rule at issue that requires service of notice and specifies that the 30-day objection period runs from the date of service, establishing that notice is essential and not merely a filing formality.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbara Porter, a beneficiary of Henry Eisenberg's estate, requested an interim accounting from the probate court. The court granted the request and o…
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 Service Of Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1222] HURLEY, Judge.
The probate court entered an order which it later construed to conflict with the Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure. The resulting conflict constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and, therefore, we grant the instant petition for writ of certiorari.
Barbara Porter, a beneficiary of the estate of Henry Eisenberg, filed a petition in the probate court for an interim accounting. The court granted her request, indicating that “Barbara R. Porter shall have the statutory time period to make any objections to said accounting, said time period to commence on the date the executed intermediate accounting is filed with the Clerk of this Court.” Later, the court applied this provision to preclude “late objections” even though Mrs. Porter claimed not to have received a notice of the filing nor an executed copy of the interim accounting.1 In our view, the court’s interpretation of its prior order was doubly wrong. Not only did it enforce an erroneous provision of the original order, but it also vitiated an important notice requirement in rule 5.345(d), Fla.R.P. & G.P. Rule 5.345(d), Fla.R.P. & G.P.,2 states: The personal representative shall serve notice of the filing and a copy of the interim accounting on all interested persons. The notice shall state that it is an application for the approval of the accounting and shall notify the person served that any objection to the accounting, or any item thereof, stating the basis for the objection, must be filed in writing within 30 days after service of notice or the interim accounting shall be approved as filed.
By focusing on the date of filing with the Clerk, the probate court effectively eliminated the rule’s notice requirement. The workings of the rule, however, demonstrate that notice to interested persons is essential. The rule specifies that the date of service of notice — not the date of filing — is the starting point for the 30-day objection period. Thus, we hold that the probate court departed from the essential requirements of law when it altered a plain and unambiguous requirement of the Florida Rules of Probate & Guardianship Procedure. Furthermore, the potential for irremediable harm resulting from an improper distribution of assets justifies immediate certiorari relief.3
Accordingly, we grant the writ and instruct the probate court to require full compliance with rule 5.345, Fla.R.P. & G.P., thus allowing the petitioner to file objections to the interim accounting within 30 days from the date of service of notice upon her. WRIT ISSUED.
GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur. . Petitioner's former counsel received an unsigned copy of a proposed interim accounting on November, 8, 1983. The interim accounting was filed on February 10, 1984. A dispute exists as to whether petitioner’s former counsel was served with a copy of the signed interim accounting. By affidavit, he swears that he was not served; counsel for the co-personal representatives, not under oath, states that opposing counsel was served. Rather than resolve this critical dispute, the probate court stated, "I'm going by the terms of the order and say that’s what it meant. That they would have to file their objections, any objections, commencing on the date ... of the executed file to the Clerk of the Court.”
. Effective January 1, 1985, this subsection of the rule was redesignated as subsection "b” and amended to read:
Notice of filing and a copy of the interim accounting shall be served on interested persons. The notice shall state that objections to the accounting must be filed within 30 days from the date of service of notice.
.Rule 5.345(g), Fla.R.P. & G.P., which was in effect when this matter was before the probate court, provided that “[i]f no objection is timely filed to an interim accounting, the accounting shall be deemed approved as filed and thereafter not subject to objection by any interested person.” Effective January 1, 1985, this provision was redesignated as subsection "e” and amended to read: “The interim accounting shall be deemed approved 30 days from the date of service of the interim accounting on interested persons, unless an objection is filed as provided in the rules.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Est. OF May Schwartz v. H.B.A. Mgmt., Inc., 673 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. See In re Estate of Eisenberg, 466 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (orders that do not follow the clear requirements of the rules of procedure depart from the essential requirements of the law); North Broward Hospital District v. Button, 592 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (work product mat…
-
N. Henry Pevsner, M.D. v. Gertrude Ellen Frederick & Allstate Ins. Co., 656 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ule 1.380(b)(1), insofar as it imposes a sanction on a nonparty after [*264] refusing to find that nonparty in contempt, it constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law and must be quashed on certiorari review. In re Eisenberg, 466 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (probate rules); State v. Battle, 302 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (rules of criminal procedure). DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur. FARMER, J., concurs specially with opinion. . Even if the issue was not yet…
-
Molnar v. Maltz, 786 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ttee examine the alleged incapacitated person and submit a report to the court. We conclude that it was error to proceed without a three-member committee. Cf. Morgan v. Turgeon, 724 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also In re Estate of Eisenberg, 466 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court appoint a new committee and conduct another hearing on the petition for incapacity. STONE, KLEIN, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…