ROBERT COBA, APPELLANT,
v.
CLAY CRAIG, ESQUIRE, AS CURATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANTONIO R. COBA, 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.
Robert Coba appealed a probate court decision denying his claim against the Estate of Antonio R. Coba. The appellate court reversed, holding that Coba's claim was not subject to the probate code's nonclaim statutes because it arose after the decedent's death, not before.
Robert Coba's claim is not subject to the probate code's nonclaim statutes because the claim arose after the decedent's death. The trial court misapplied May v. Illinois Nat'l Ins. Co., and Coba properly preserved his claim by asserting it within the statutory timeframe when probate proceedings were instituted in 1992.
[1] A claim against a decedent's estate that arises after the decedent's death is not subject to the probate code's statutes of nonclaim.
[2] A claim predicated upon events that take place after the decedent's death is not required to be filed as a statement of claim against the estate.
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 intelligence“is not making a claim or demand against the decedent's estate that arose before [his] death, and because the action cannot be deemed a liability of the decedent, as it arose well after [his] death, the claim is not subject to the probate code's statutes of nonclaim.”
Establishes the key distinction that claims arising after death are not subject to nonclaim statutes
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1987, when Antonio R. Coba died, property passed to Robert Coba by operation of a recorded deed. The deed was not cancelled until 1996 by court ord…
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
PER CURIAM.
Robert Coba appeals an order of the Circuit Court Probate Division determining that he did not file a valid claim against the Estate of Antonio R. Coba. We reverse.
The trial court misapprehended the effect of May v. Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co., 771 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.2000), on this case. Here, Robert Coba “is not making a claim or demand against the decedent’s estate that arose before [his] death, and because the action cannot be deemed a liability of the decedent, as it arose well after [his] death, the claim is not subject to the probate code’s statutes of nonclaim.” Thompson v. Hodson, 825 So. 2d 941, 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)(citing Swenszkowski v. Compton, 662 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)); Langford v. Ferrera, 823 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See Spohr v. Berryman, 589 So. 2d 225, 228 (Fla.l991)(interpreting § 73.702, Fla. Stat. (1985))(“reference to claims arising before the death of the decedent is intended to make clear that it is unnecessary to file a statement of claim in order to prosecute an action against the estate that is predicated upon events that take place after the decedent’s death.”). In 1987, at the time of the decedent’s death, the property passed to Robert by operation of a recorded deed; the deed was not cancelled until 1996 by order of the Circuit Court, General Jurisdiction Division.1 Therefore, Robert preserved any claim on the property by properly asserting same within the time frame in 733.702(1), Florida Statutes (1987), when Richard Coba instituted these probate proceedings in 1992. Section 733.710, Florida Statutes (1987) does not bar Robert Coba’s claim.
Reversed and remanded.
. That order is not on appeal here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. In re the Est. of Gerard Joseph, 83 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…r credits has been extinguished, or at least reduced, by virtue of (a) the probate statutes of non-claim, sections 733.702 and 733.710, Florida Statutes (2010), or (b) the applicable statutes of limitation. We reject this argument. In Coba v. Craig, 881 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), we concluded that a claim and liability arising after the decedent’s death is not subject to the probate code’s statute of nonclaim. In this case, the event which will trigger the former wife’s elaim to credits has not yet occurr…
Authorities Cited
- David R. MAY Ad Litem of the Estate of Oscar T. Bradley v. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co., 771 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2000)
- Spohr v. Berryman, 589 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1991)
- Thompson v. Andrew K. Hodson, M.D., 825 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Keithan Darnell Battie v. Singletary, 825 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Langford v. Ferrera, 823 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Swenszkowski v. Compton, 662 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)