L.E. MERVYN CAMPBELL AND CECIL FERDINAND AND PEARL FERDINAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
IN RE ESTATE OF ERNEST CHARLES SCHLEUSENER, DECEASED, 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.
The court held that section 733.702, Florida Statutes, is a statute of limitations, not a statute of non-claim, and allows for untimely claims based on grounds like estoppel or fraud.
[1] A statute governing the time for filing claims against an estate is a statute of limitations, not a jurisdictional statute of non-claim.
[2] Untimely claims against an estate may be excused by valid grounds such as estoppel or fraud.
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 intelligenceCreditors of an estate filed their claims late under section 733.702, Florida Statutes. The trial court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to extend the tim…
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 Statute Of Non-Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
Certain creditors of an estate who were late presenting their claims under section 733.702, Florida Statutes (1985), appeal the trial judge’s ruling that, under current statutes and case law, there is no jurisdiction or authority to extend the time for filing claims. We reverse.
We do not fault the trial court for its ruling based in part on an earlier decision from this very court which the Supreme Court has since reversed. In Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County v. Estate of Read, 493 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1986), the Supreme Court considered whether section 733.702 is a jurisdictional statute of non-claim or a statute of limitations and held it to be the latter, stating in part:
We fully recognize the strong public policy in favor of settling and closing estates in a speedy manner. Estate of Brown, 117 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1960). However, as the facts of this case demonstrate, justice requires us to hold that section 733.-702 is a statute of limitations. Valid grounds, such as estoppel or fraud, may exist that would and should excuse untimely claims. A creditor would lose the right to assert these potentially valid claims were we to hold that section 733.-702 is a statute of nonclaim. Our holding that section 733.702 is a statute of limitations confirms the fact that estates and creditors must adhere to well-established practices when dealing with untimely claims. The estate must file a motion to strike or other objection to an untimely claim. If the creditor wishes to raise the issue of estoppel or fraud he may file a reply pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100. See Picchione v. Asti, 354 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). This procedure guarantees that claims such as fraud and estoppel are properly adjudicated, (emphasis supplied)
The creditor’s rationale for the late filing, in the case now before us, does in fact hinge on the question of fraud and estoppel which was properly raised below. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing should have been held.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Humana Med. Plan, Inc. v. Est. OF Sonja Durant, 650 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…stify the filing of the late claim, as there was here. We agree with Humana’s argument that the trial court should at least have held an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity of Humana’s estoppel claim. See Campbell v. Estate of Schleusener, 504 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (holding that an evidentiary hearing should have been held where the creditor’s rationale for a late filing hinged on the question of fraud and estoppel); Harbour House Properties v. Estate of Stone, 443 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1…
-
In re Est. OF Victor Hammer v. James R. Knott Ad Litem of the Estate of Victor J. Hammer, 511 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…rules of judicial procedure and do not constitute a nonclaim statute, and that the 1984 amendment merely made the preexisting statutory provision self-executing but did not convert it into a non-claim statute. In Campbell v. Estate of Schleusener, 504 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), this court called attention to the supreme court’s holding in Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County v. Estate of Read, 493 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1986), that section 733.702 is a statute of limitations, not a statute of non-claim, and that…
Authorities Cited
- Barnett Bank OF Palm Beach Cnty. v. Est. OF Leon Henry Read, Jr., 493 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1986)
- In re Est. of Daniel Emmitt Brown v. Robinson, 117 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1960)
- Picchione v. Asti, 354 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)