PAUL GALEGO, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES F. ROBINSON AND MICHAEL D. GALEGO, AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK C. GALEGO, DECEASED, 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.
Paul Galego, a Rhode Island resident serving as attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney executed by a deceased Florida resident, challenged the probate court's jurisdiction over him in a suit alleging mismanagement of estate assets. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the probate court lacked personal jurisdiction because Galego was not an 'interested person' under probate law and had insufficient contacts with Florida.
The court reversed, holding that the probate court lacked personal jurisdiction over Paul Galego because: (1) he was not an 'interested person' under Florida law as he had no beneficial interest in the estate; (2) his actions as attorney-in-fact were in a representative capacity, not individual capacity; and (3) there were insufficient contacts with Florida to establish jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute.
[1] A probate court lacks personal jurisdiction over a party who is not an "interested person" in the estate and whose actions, even if taken pursuant to a power of attorney,…
[2] A party acting solely in a representative capacity, such as a nominated personal representative, is not considered an "interested person" in the estate for the purpose of…
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“An 'interested person' is 'any person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the particular proceeding involved.'”
Establishes the statutory standard for who qualifies as an interested person subject to probate court jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank C. Galego, a Florida resident, executed a durable power of attorney in favor of his son Paul Galego, a Rhode Island resident. The estate's co-pe…
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 Durable Power Of Attorney cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s nonfi-nal order denying his motion to quash service of process or, in the alternative, dismiss the complaint. We agree that the probate court lacked jurisdiction over appellant and .reverse.
The decedent, a Florida resident, executed a durable power of attorney in favor of appellant, a resident of Rhode Island. In their complaint, appellees allege numerous instances where they contend appellant damaged the estate through mismanagement of the decedent’s assets pursuant to the power of attorney. Appellant first argues that the lower court had no personal jurisdiction over him since the complaint failed to allege sufficient jurisdictional allegations. Second, appellant contends that he was improperly served by “formal notice” which is effective only for those parties “interested” in the estate, and that he is not an “interested” party under the statute. We agree.
An “interested person” is “any person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the particular proceeding involved.” § 731.201, Fla.Stat. (1995).
The record reveals that appellant is not a beneficiary, claimant or administrator of the decedent’s estate and that he, in fact, has no interest in the estate. Appellant’s actions in admitting the decedent’s will to probate were done in his representative capacity and do not subject him individually to the personal jurisdiction of the lower court. Appellees contend that appellant is an “interested” party as evidenced by his filing of an answer brief in an appeal filed by his sister regarding the validity of the decedent’s will.
We disagree. Appellant’s filing of the brief was done in his capacity as the nominated personal representative and as a named party in the action.
Appellees’ argument that the fact that the decedent executed a durable power of attorney in favor of appellant is sufficient to bring him within the jurisdiction of the court is without merit. There are no allegations in the complaint that any of the actions taken by appellant pursuant to the power of attorney were conducted in Florida as required by section 48.193, Florida Statutes (1995).
See Turner v. Lawton, 473 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
We therefore conclude that there were insufficient contacts to bring appellant within the jurisdiction of the Florida court and that appellant was entitled to the traditional form of service of process pursuant to section 48.031, Florida Statutes (1991).
Appellees should have instituted a normal civil action against appellant for any mishandling of funds under the power of attorney. See In re Estate of Black, 528 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); In re Estate of Vernon, 608 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Sampson Farm Ltd. P'ship v. Parmenter, 238 So. 3d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…obtained.” Id. at 706. Moreover, it is well established—both generally, and specifically with regard to adversary actions arising out of probate—that a pleading must make the requisite allegations of personal jurisdiction. Galego v. Robinson, 695 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); In re Estate of Tyler, 543 So. 2d 1307, 1307-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Wolf, 526 So. 2d at 705; see also Kountze v. Kountze, 20 So. 3d 428, 432-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Thus, even if Sampson Farm fell within the scope of se…
-
Cohn v. Woolin, 971 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…te court. The petition was brought in the name of Cohn’s mother. The Florida court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over Jerald Cohn simply by virtue of the fact that his mother had executed a power of attorney in his favor. Galego v. Robinson, 695 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). On remand, Woolin must provide details regarding actions allegedly taken by Jerald Cohn in Florida comprising a sufficient basis for jurisdiction under section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes. Jurisdictional discovery and an evide…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Herrington, 528 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- In re the Est. OF Harold Vernon v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 608 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Turner v. Lawton, 473 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)