MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER, APPELLANT,
v.
SALOMON LEVY AND DONALD H. KANE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES; ET AL., 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.
The court held that the petition for revocation of probate was untimely filed and that the order awarding attorney's fees was not a final, appealable order.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (Sloan-Kettering) appealed an order finding its petition for revocation of probate of a codicil untimely and an…
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 Codicil cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center [Sloan-Kettering] appeals from the trial court’s order finding that its Petition for Revocation of Probate of Codicil is barred as untimely pursuant to sections 733.212(l)(b) and (5), Florida Statutes (1995). Sloan-Kettering also appeals from a portion of that same order that found that the appellees are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees against Sloan-Kettering. We affirm, in part, and dismiss a portion of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Section 733.212(3), Florida Statutes (1995), requires the personal representative to serve a copy of the Notice of Administration on certain individuals, including beneficiaries such as Sloan-Kettering “in a manner provided for service of formal notice.” The personal representatives strictly, complied with this requirement when they mailed a certified letter containing the Notice of Administration to Sloan-Kettering and a Sloan-Kettering employee signed a receipt acknowledging that the certified letter was received.
Therefore, since Sloan-Kettering did not file its Petition for Revocation of Probate of Codicil within the time period stated in sections 733.212(l)(b) and (5), Florida Statutes (1995), the trial court correctly found that the petition is barred as untimely.
Moreover, contrary to the position taken by Sloan-Kettering, we find that In re Estate of Tarmy, 518 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), is inapplicable because in the instant case, there are no facts that would give rise to an estoppel claim.
Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the order finding that the petition is barred as untimely.
Finally, because the trial court’s order finding that the appellees were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees against the appellant did not fix the amount, we dismiss that portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Gonzalez Eng’g, Inc. v. Miami Pump & Supply Co., 641 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Affirmed, in part; appeal dismissed, in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Filmore Chaiken and Robert T. Tenen v. Suchman, 694 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…al within thirty days of the rendition of that order. Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, an order awarding entitlement to attorney’s fees does not become final until the amount of the fee is set. See Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr. v. Levy, 681 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Boyce v. Cluett, 672 So. 2d 858, 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Easley, McCaleb & Stallings, Ltd. v. Gibbons, 667 So. 2d 988, 988-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Gonzalez Eng’g, Inc. v. Miami Pump & Supply Co., 641 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994…
-
Cason v. Hammock, 908 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…otice of administration be served “in the manner provided for service of formal notice.... ”); Fla. Prob. R. 5.240 (requiring that all beneficiaries be formally served with the notice of administration); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr. v. Levy, 681 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); In re Estate of Ballett, 426 So. 2d 1196, 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (“If interested persons are to be limited by special time constraints, the personal representative must strictly comply with the statute authorizing such limitati…
-
Ocean Club Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Curtis, 934 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…e, in the absence of an actual award of fees, the matter is not ripe for consideration. See Nye v. HCI Mfg., Inc., 901 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Lydolph v. Davidson, 880 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Mem’l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr. v. Levy, 681 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gonzalez Eng'g, Inc. v. Miami Pump & Supply Co., Inc., 641 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Heilman v. Chevy Chase Sav. Bank, 518 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- In re Est. OF Isaac Tarmy, 518 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)