IN RE ESTATE OF JOSEPH A. UZZO, 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 court held that failure to timely file notice of an independent action with the probate court should not bar the claim if no harm resulted to interested parties.
[1] A claimant must timely file an independent action on a claim against an estate and also timely file notice of that independent action with the probate court.
[2] Dismissal of a claimant's independent action is not warranted if the claimant can demonstrate that no harm to an interested party resulted from the failure to file the no…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, as personal representative and claimant against an estate, filed a claim and an independent action. The probate court denied her motion for…
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 Claim Against Estate cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
This appeal was consolidated with the pending appeal styled Peter Hiles and Auto Bahn Sales and Leasing, Inc. v. Auto Bahn Federalization, Inc., a Florida corporation, and the Estate of Joseph A. Uzzo, deceased, et al, case No. 87-1615, by order dated May 12, 1988. However, except to the extent the facts may overlap, Hiles v. Auto Bahn will be treated in a separate opinion.
Appellant Patricia Morris was both personal representative of the estate of Uzzo, and a claimant against the estate. There appears to be no question that Morris timely filed her statement of claim in the probate proceeding. Peter Hiles, as president of Auto Bahn Sales and Leasing, Inc., filed an objection to Morris’ claim, apparently because of a dispute that existed between Hiles and Uzzo, prior to Uzzo’s death. Thereafter, Morris timely filed her independent action on her claim in the circuit court.
The issue was whether Morris complied with section 733.705(3), Florida Statutes (1985), which requires the timely filing of notice of independent action with the probate court.
Although appellant had filed a motion for extension of time to file an independent action (which in reality was an extension of time to file her notice of independent action), the probate court denied her motion and ruled that her claim was barred. This case appears to be on all fours with the supreme court’s recent decision in Watson v. First Florida Leasing, Inc., 537 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1989). Under the holding in Watson, if the claimant can demonstrate that no harm to an interested party resulted by failure to file the notice, the penalty should not be dismissal. In this case, it appears the failure to file the notice occasioned no harm. Morris timely filed her claim and should be able to pursue it. The order of the probate court denying appellant’s claim should be reversed and her claim reinstated.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hiles v. Auto Bahn Federalization, Inc., 555 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…POLEN, Judge. This case was consolidated with In re Estate of Joseph A. Uzzo, 555 So. 2d 1217 by order dated May 12, 1988. However, except to the extent the facts may overlap, In re Estate of Uzzo has been treated in a separate opinion. On January 31, 1983, Peter Hiles and Joseph A. Uzzo formed a corporation called Auto Bahn Sales and Leasi…
Authorities Cited
- Watson v. First Fla. Leasing, Inc., 537 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1989)