PHILLIP J. SCUTIERI, JR., JACQUELINE M. SIMMONS, SUNDALE ASSOCIATES, LTD., THE SUNRISE CLUB, INC. AND ASSOCIATED AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., APPELLANTS,
v.
ESTATE OF PHIL REVITZ, 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.
This appeal concerns whether estate creditors may file a late statement of claim in probate court. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the creditors' motion for leave to file a nunc pro tunc claim statement thirty-three days late, holding that the three-month filing deadline is a procedural guideline subject to judicial discretion when good cause is shown.
The trial court abused its discretion in denying the creditors leave to file their late statement of claim. Section 733.702 is a procedural guideline, not a nonclaim statute, and may be relaxed in the sound discretion of the probate court for good cause shown. Good cause existed here because the personal representative was already legally notified of the claim through being substituted as a party to the pending lawsuit within the statutory period, and there was no showing of prejudice from the thirty-three-day delay.
[1] Probate statutes establishing time limits for filing claims against an estate are guidelines for judicial procedure that may be relaxed by the probate court for good caus…
[2] A procedural statute adopted by the Florida Supreme Court as a temporary rule of procedure is constitutional if it does not conflict with the Florida Rules of Probate and…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Section 733.702, Florida Statutes [ (1985) ] and its predecessors are not nonclaims statutes but guidelines for judicial procedure which may be relaxed in the sound discretion of the probate court for good cause shown.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that the statutory filing deadline is discretionary, not mandatory.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA lawsuit against Phil Revitz had been pending for four years before his death. After Revitz died, the personal representative of his estate was promp…
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 Shown cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1004] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final order denying a motion made below by certain estate creditors [Phillip J. Scutieri, Jr., Jacqueline M. Simmons, Sundale Associates, Ltd., The Sunrise Club, Inc., and Associated American Development Corp.] for leave to file a statement of claim nunc pro tunc which was otherwise untimely filed under Section 733.702(1), Florida Statutes (1985). We reverse based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, we have held that “Section 733.702, Florida Statutes [ (1985) ] and its predecessors are not nonclaims statutes but guidelines for judicial procedure which may be relaxed in the sound discretion of the probate court for good cause shown.” Har-bour House Properties, Inc. v. Estate of Stone, 443 So. 2d 136, 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (citing In re Jeffries’ Estate, 136 Fla. 410,181 So. 833 (1938) and Davis v. Evans, 132 So. 2d 476, 482 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert, denied, 136 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1961)).
Second, this procedural statute is entirely constitutional under Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution because it was adopted as a temporary, and still effective, rule of procedure by the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar Re Emergency Amendments to Fla. Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure, 460 So. 2d 906 (Fla.1984), and does not otherwise conflict with any rule in the Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure. Compare Z & O Realty Assocs., Inc. v. Lalcow (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (case no. 86-2435, opinion filed June 23,1987).
Third, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to relax the three-month time period established by the above statute by denying the claimants leave to file their statement of claim thirty-three days late; this is so because good cause was shown below for allowing such a late-filed claim statement. Without dispute, the subject claim is based upon a lawsuit which had been pending for four years against the deceased Phil Revitz at the time of his death. Following the death, the personal representative of Mr. Revitz’ estate was promptly substituted as a party in the lawsuit long before the statutory three-month period for filing statements of claim in probate court expired. This being so, the aforesaid personal representative was legally notified of the claim against the estate in timely fashion by virtue of her being made a party to the said lawsuit within the statutory period; she cannot now be heard to complain that she was not legally notified of same so as to preclude the late-filed statement of claim in this case. It exalts form over substance to not allow a second legal notice of this claim, namely the statement of claim asserted herein, to be filed late in this case — particularly where there is utterly no showing of prejudice because of the late filing to the personal representative, estate beneficiaries, other estate creditors, or anyone else on this record. Cf Williams v. Estate of Williams, 493 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (where personal representative is not prejudiced and delay is not excessive, trial court should grant extension of time within which to file independent actions on objected-to claim against estate); In re Estate of Oxford, 372 So. 2d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert, denied, 382 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.1980) (same); Bell v. Harris, 366 So. 2d 765, 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (same). In our view, Lasater v. Leathers, 475 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) and Roberts v. Jassy, 436 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), do not compel a contrary result because in neither of those cases did the claimants seek leave to file, as here, an otherwise late statement of claim; indeed, the claimants in those cases, unlike the claimants herein, made no effort at any time to file a statement of claim in the probate proceeding.
The final order under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to allow the claimants herein to file their statement of claim.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kane v. Lord, 590 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Spohr v. Berryman, 564 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Scutieri v. Estate of Revitz, 510 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 519 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1988); Harbour House Properties, Inc. v. Estate of Stone, 443 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).…
-
Shessel v. Est. OF Mary Edith Calhoun, 573 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…fully satisfied that requirement. In re Estate of Brown, 421 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see In re Estate of Klotz, 394 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Cloer v. Shawver, 177 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); see also Scutieri v. Estate of Revitz, 510 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 519 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1988).…
-
Scott v. Reyes, 913 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…and, we consider the probate court’s order denying Mrs. Scott’s petition for an extension of time to file a claim under an abuse of discretion standard. Miller v. Estate of Baer, 837 So. 2d 448, 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Scutieri v. Estate of Revitz, 510 So. 2d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). DISCUSSION Generally speaking, the provisions of section 733.702 bar any claim or demand against a decedent’s estate that arose before the death of the decedent which is not filed in the probate proceeding on or before t…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- In re Est. of J. B. Jeffries, 136 Fla. 410 (Fla. 1938)
- Davis v. Evans, 132 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- R.W. Williams and Lois W. Mize v. The Est. OF Roy Levon Williams, 493 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Bruzzese v. State, 372 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Harbour House Props., Inc. v. Est. OF Pearl G. Stone, 443 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- The Fla. Bar re Emergency Amendments to Fla. Rules of Probate & Guardianship Procedure, 460 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1984)
- Brooks v. State, 136 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1961)
- Evans v. Slay, 136 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1961)
- Roberts v. Jassy, 436 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Bell v. Harris, 366 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)