IN RE ESTATE OF CLARA KATZ DECEASED, RHONDA FRIEDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
EVELYN COHAN AND EDWARD J. KASS, 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.
In this probate dispute, the court addressed whether a trial court could summarily decide that joint account assets should be included in an estate based on a will created ten years after the accounts were established, and whether a curator could be appointed to hold the assets pending resolution. The court held that an evidentiary hearing was required due to genuine uncertainty about the will's meaning, but the curator appointment was proper.
An evidentiary hearing is required because genuine uncertainty exists as to which of at least two reasonable constructions of the will should apply, and parol and extrinsic evidence would aid such resolution. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a curator to marshal and hold all of the decedent's assets, including those claimed as non-probate assets, pending a determination of their status.
[1] A genuine uncertainty as to which of at least two reasonable constructions of a will should apply requires an evidentiary hearing to consider parol and extrinsic evidence…
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in appointing a curator to marshal and hold all of a decedent's assets pending a determination of their status, even if some a…
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“An evidentiary hearing is required because there is a genuine uncertainty as to which of at least two reasonable constructions of the will should apply, resolution of which would be aided by consideration of parol and extrinsic evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard that when multiple reasonable interpretations of a will exist, summary judgment is improper and an evidentiary hearing is required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClara Katz's estate contained negotiable instruments held in accounts in the joint names of the deceased and her children. A will was created ten year…
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 Probate Estate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Two questions are presented in these consolidated appeals from orders of the Probate Court: 1) whether the trial court could have decided as a matter of law, without an evidentiary hearing, that certain negotiable instruments held in accounts in the joint names of the deceased and her children were intended to pass as part of the estate by a will created ten years after the accounts were established, and 2) whether the court could order that those monies in the joint accounts be turned over to a curator pending a resolution of the question whether they should be included in the probate estate.
An evidentiary hearing is required because there is a genuine uncertainty as to which of at least two reasonable constructions of the will should apply, resolution of which would be aided by consideration of parol and extrinsic evidence. Campbell v. Campbell, 489 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a curator to mar-shall and hold for safekeeping all of the decedent’s assets, including those which were claimed by one of the beneficiaries as non-probate assets, pending a determination as to the status of those assets. Section 733.501, Florida Statutes (1985) authorizes the appointment of a curator whose first responsibility is to marshall all of the decedent’s effects. The order to “turnover” assets was particularly appropriate in light of allegations that the beneficiary claiming ownership of joint account property adverse to the interests of other beneficiaries was also making distributions of those assets. See Perez v. Lopez, 454 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) and Estate of Conger v. Conger, 414 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nahar v. Oral Mildred Jap-A-Joe Nahar, 656 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…sition of the Miami real estate in the first instance. We find no error in the trial court’s order charging the marshaled assets with the cost incurred in marshaling same. See Nahar v. Nahar, 576 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); In re Estate of Katz, 501 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Perez v. Lopez, 454 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The trial court properly ordered the Administrator Ad Litem to pay these expenses from the assets of Roebi’s estate. We hold that the trial court erred in finding the AmeriFirst…
-
In re Est. OF Mallory T. "Pete" Miller v. Miller, 568 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…orship would not be included in the accounting of the assets of the estate. Further, there was no proof presented supporting the allegations that some personal property had been disposed of by the appellant. The appellee cites In re Estate of Katz, 501 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) in support of his position. However, Katz is distinguishable. The court upheld the appointment of a curator to marshal the decedent’s assets in a will contest involving multiple beneficiaries, one of whom was making distributions…
Authorities Cited
- The Est. OF George Drew Conger v. Conger, 414 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Campbell v. Campbell, 489 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- The City OF KEY W. v. The State of Fla. ex rel. E.E.S. Enters., Inc., 454 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)