CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. AND GARY W. POLLACK, PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD J. LOCASCIO AND IN RE ESTATE OF SILVIA M. LOCASCIO, RESPONDENTS/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.
Carlton Fields and Gary Pollack, creditors with priority liens on Edward S. Locascio's property, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the probate court from exercising jurisdiction over Locascio's property interest and the proceeds from its sale. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that the probate court lacked jurisdiction over non-estate property belonging to Edward S. Locascio.
The probate court lacks jurisdiction over Edward S. Locascio's property interest and the proceeds from its sale because these assets are not part of the Estate of Sylvia Locascio and are outside the probate court's jurisdiction. The creditors' recorded liens must be recognized and satisfied according to law, outside the administration of the Estate.
[1] A writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy to prevent a court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction.
[2] A probate court lacks jurisdiction over property interests that are not part of the decedent's estate.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Prohibition is an appropriate, if extraordinary, remedy to prevent a court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction.”
Establishes the legal standard for granting a writ of prohibition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward S. Locascio was convicted of murdering the decedent, Silvia M. Locascio. In a prior case, the court determined that Edward S. Locascio maintain…
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 Excess Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioners and appellants in these consolidated cases, Carlton Fields, P.A., and Gary W. Pollack, are creditors holding priority liens on Edward S. Locascio’s property. They petition for a writ of prohibition to preclude a probate court judge from continuing to exercise jurisdiction *612over Edward S. Locascio’s property. We grant the petition.
This Court has already considered the ownership interests of Edward S. Locascio and the Estate following Edward S. Locas-cio’s conviction for the murder of the decedent. We held that Edward S. Locascio maintained a 50% interest in the house as non-homestead property. The decedent’s 50% homestead interest in the house passed to her son, Edward J. Locascio, outside of probate. LoCascio v. Sharpe, 28 So.3d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). That is law of the case. The probate court recognized this in an order determining the status of property, but it has directed that the net proceeds of the approved sale of the property allocable to Edward S. Locas-cio be deposited into the registry of court. The petitioning creditors have refused to release their recorded liens unless the closing agent disburses Edward S. Locascio’s net proceeds to the creditors in order of priority (to the extent of such proceeds, which will be insufficient to satisfy all of the judgment hens).
Prohibition is an appropriate, if extraordinary, remedy to prevent a court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction. English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1977). In the case at hand, the probate court is without jurisdiction to continue controlling Edward S. Locascio’s interest in the residence or in his share of the net proceeds of sale, because they are not a part of the Estate of Sylvia Locascio or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the probate court. We therefore grant the petition for prohibition. The lienholders’ undisputed, recorded liens against Edward S. Locascio’s property and proceeds shall be recognized as required by law and outside the administration of the Estate. See Carlton Fields v. LoCascio, 59 So.3d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). We trust that it will not be necessary to issue the writ.
Petition granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Transp. Workers Union of Am., Local 291, Afl-Cio v. Cunningham (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…representation, it falls within PERC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Prohibition is an appropriate remedy to prevent a court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction. English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla. 1977); Carlton Fields, P.A. v. Locascio, 81 So. 3d 611, 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Fla. Educ. Ass’n 2 Prior to the filing of the instant petition, both parties conceded that the Section 2- 47 appeal hearing remained available to Cunningham. v. Wojcicki, 930 So. 2d 812, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (granting p…
-
Warner v. Quicken Loans, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2020)…obate court has no jurisdiction over property not cognizable in probate, and any judgment is binding only on the rem over which the probate court has jurisdiction. Spitzer v. Branning, 135 Fla. 49, 53 (1938); accord Carlton Fields, P.A. v. Locascio, 81 So. 3d 611, 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). “It, therefore, follows that if the judgment of the probate court purports to bind the rem over which the court is without jurisdiction the judgment is not binding on such rem and is a nullity in that regard.” Spitzer, 135 F…
Authorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- LoCASCIO v. Sharpe, 23 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Carlton Fields, P.A. v. LoCASCIO, 59 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)