ROBERT RAINIER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARIE S. HOUSTON, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
MIKE CALHOUN, 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.
A personal representative of an estate appealed orders denying both a motion for extension of time to file an objection to a creditor's claim and a motion to strike the creditor's petition to enforce the claim. The court affirmed, holding that the personal representative's failure to timely object to the claim within thirty days deprived the trial court of power to address the merits.
The trial court properly denied both motions because the personal representative failed to file a timely objection to the creditor's claim within thirty days as required by statute, and without such timely objection, the trial court was without power to reject the claim or determine disputed questions of fact regarding its validity.
[1] A personal representative must demonstrate good cause to obtain an extension of time to file an objection to an estate creditor's claim.
[2] A trial court has discretion to deny a motion for an extension of time to file an objection to an estate creditor's claim when no good cause is shown.
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“the trial court was 'without power to reject the claim or to determine disputed questions of fact that have to do with or which may conclude the question of [its] validity'”
Establishes that failure to timely object to a creditor's claim deprives the probate court of jurisdiction to address the claim's validity on the merits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA creditor filed a claim against an estate. The personal representative failed to file an objection within the required thirty-day period under Florid…
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 Good Cause For Extension cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the personal representative of an estate from two orders which deny (1) the personal representative’s motion for an extension of time within which to file an objection to an estate creditor's claim, and (2) the personal representative’s motion to strike the estate creditor’s petition to enforce his claim. We affirm these orders for two reasons.
First, no showing of good cause was made below for the personal representative's untimely filing of an objection to the instant claim. The personal representative was required to file his objection within thirty days after the filing of the subject claim, § 733.705(2), Fla.Stat. (1985), in stead, he waited one year and eleven months to object to the claim, without good cause. This being so, the trial court was well within its discretion in denying the personal representative’s motion for an extension of time within which to file an objection to the creditor’s claim. See El-lard v. Godwin, 77 So. 2d .617, 619 (Fla. 1955); In re Estate of Maze, 431 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Baldwin v. Lewis, 397 So. 2d 985, 987-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Sessoms v. Johnson, 378 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Second, because of the personal representative’s failure to timely file an objection to the claim, as stated above, the trial court was “without power to reject the claim or to determine disputed questions of fact that have to do with or which may conclude the question of [its] validity,” Goggin v. Shanley, 81 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla. 1955) (asserted statute of limitations bar to claim, made by motion to strike a petition to enforce claim, as here, could not be ruled upon by probate judge where personal representative had not filed timely objection to claim prior to motion to strike); see Barnett Bank v. Estate of Read, 493 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla.1986), and, therefore, the personal representative’s aforesaid motion to strike based on an alleged illegal contract was properly denied by the court without holding an evidentiary hearing thereon. Sessoms v. Johnson, 378 So. 2d at 1262.
The trial court orders, which deny (1) the personal representative’s motion for an extension of time within which to file an objection to the estate creditor’s claim and (2) the personal representative’s motion to strike the estate creditor’s petition to enforce his claim, are in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Calhoun v. The Honorable Francis J. Christie & Robert Rainier, 510 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. In view of our decision in the companion case of Rainier v. Calhoun, 510 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) we grant Mike Calhoun’s petition for a writ of mandamus and direct the respondent trial judge to rule on Calhoun’s application to enforce claim filed below. The trial judge declined to rule on Calhoun’s application while the appea…
-
Kettie Alcee v. Tenet Healthsystem Hosps., Inc., 756 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…[*1093] PER CURIAM. We affirm on authority of Goggin v. Shanley, 81 So. 2d 728 (Fla.1955), and Rainier v. Calhoun, 510 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). STONE, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Rainier v. Calhoun, 534 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…sonal representative’s motion to strike the creditor’s claim was denied. The personal representative next filed a motion to extend the time for objecting to the creditor’s claim, which motion was denied and affirmed here. Rain [*736] ier v. Calhoun, 510 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Ultimately, Calhoun filed a motion to enforce his claim. An order was entered granting that motion. That same order required the personal representative to pay the creditor interest from the date of the filing of his claim again…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barnett Bank OF Palm Beach Cnty. v. Est. OF Leon Henry Read, Jr., 493 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1986)
- Goggin v. Shanley, 81 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1955)
- Mabel v. Baldwin, 397 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Sessoms v. Johnson, 378 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- In re the Est. OF Charles O. Maze. Fran Rimondi v. Etta Legters, 431 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)