NORMA BETANCOURT, APPELLANT,
v.
IN RE THE ESTATE OF VICTORIA MISDRAJI, 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.
The court held that the appellant's repeated petitions to reopen a closed estate were properly denied as the issues had already been adjudicated.
The appellant sought to reopen her mother's closed estate and appoint a new personal representative. Her prior objections and petitions to reopen the …
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 Probate Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
Norma Betancourt, pro se, appeals a circuit court order denying her petition to open her mother’s estate and to appoint a new personal representative. The estate was closed in 2004 when the personal representative (another adult child of the decedent) was discharged. Ms. Betancourt did not appeal that order.
Ms. Betancourt filed written objections to the closing of the estate a month later, and her objections were denied in an order entered in February, 2005. Ms. Betanc-ourt did not appeal that order.
Ten months later, Ms. Betancourt filed a “petition for subsequent administration.” After receiving letters from her, the probate judge conducted a status conference on May 3, 2007. Absent a consensus or majority vote among all five adult children of the decedent, the court declined to reopen the estate for further administration. That very day, Ms. Betancourt filed a motion to disqualify the probate judge. The petition for subsequent administration and the motion to disqualify were denied in an order entered May 21, 2007. Ms. Betanc-ourt did not appeal that order.
Ms. Betancourt filed another petition to re-open the estate and to appoint a new personal representative on June 11, 2008, *490and this was denied on June 16, 2008. This appeal followed.
The estate did not file an' appellee’s brief. This seems logical, since the estate has been closed for several years and has no assets, personal representative, or attorney. The probate judge has been patient and gracious, but Ms. Betancourt must now realize that her claims, objections, petitions, grievances, and correspondence to the court regarding her late mother’s estate must stop. Those issues have been adjudicated and may not be asserted successively. See Jenkins v. Lennar Corp., 972 So.2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cave v. Colon-Cave, 117 So. 3d 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Betancourt v. Estate of Misdraji, 13 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 921 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); M.G. v. State, 711 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Smith v. State, 685 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). GRIFFIN, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Mollie W. McKINNON v. Weinstein, 125 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…aside because it was improperly entered. When the trial judge denied that motion, McKinnon appealed from the later denial order in an improper attempt to belatedly challenge the original injunction order. See, e.g., Betancourt v. Estate of Misdraji, 13 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (declining to consider issues raised on appeal from denial of successive petition to re-open estate when same issues had been decided in prior orders from which moving party had not appealed); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 921 So. 2d 796…
Authorities Cited
- Oza B. Jenkins v. Lennar Corp. & Duane Morris & Heckscher, 972 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)