NANCY STONE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSS G. STONE AND ALMA G. STONE, 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.
Nancy Stone appealed a trial court order striking her motion for costs as untimely. The Fourth District reversed, holding that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525's 30-day deadline for filing cost motions does not apply to adversary probate proceedings, which are instead governed by Florida Probate Rule 5.025(d)(2).
Rule 1.525 does not apply to adversary probate proceedings. Florida Probate Rule 5.025(d)(2) expressly exempts adversary probate proceedings from Rule 1.525, similar to the exemption for family law proceedings. Therefore, the trial court erred in striking Stone's cost motion based on the 30-day deadline.
[1] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, requiring a motion for costs to be served within 30 days of judgment, does not apply to adversary probate proceedings.
[2] Adversary probate proceedings, as nearly as practicable, must be conducted similarly to suits of a civil nature, except for Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525.
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“under Florida Probate Rule 5.025(d)(2), adversary probate proceedings, "as nearly as practicable, must be conducted similar to suits of a civil nature, including entry of defaults. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure govern, except for rule 1.525."”
Establishes that Rule 1.525 is explicitly excluded from applying to adversary probate proceedings
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNancy Stone filed a motion for costs in an adversary probate proceeding. The trial court struck the motion as untimely under Florida Rule of Civil Pro…
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.
Appellant, Nancy Stone, appeals the trial court’s order striking her motion for costs and denying her motion to have the motion for costs deemed timely filed. We reverse and remand because Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 did not apply to appellant’s motion for costs.1
Generally, in civil proceedings, “[a]ny party seeking a judgment taxing costs, attorneys’ fees, or both shall serve a motion no later than 30 days after filing of the judgment ... which judgment or notice concludes the action as to that party.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.525. However, under Florida Probate Rule 5.025(d)(2), adversary probate proceedings, “as nearly as practicable, must be conducted similar to suits of a civil nature, including entry of defaults. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure govern, except for rule 1.525.” This probate rule is applicable to the order on appeal in this case. In re Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules, 95 So.3d 114, 115 (Fla.2012). The inapplicability of rule 1.525 in adversary probate proceedings functions identically to the inapplicability of the rule in proceedings governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. See Montello v. Montello, 961 So.2d 257, 258-59 (Fla.2007); Hollister v. Hollister, *378965 So.2d 841, 349-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Smith v. Smith, 902 So.2d 859, 862-63 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
As such, the trial court erred in striking appellant’s motion for costs based on the motion being untimely served under the thirty-day rule of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525. We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings on appellant’s motion for costs.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
MAY, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Finnegan v. Noreen Compton, 154 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…obate proceedings.” Appellant argues that she “cannot be required to comply with a rule that specifically, as a matter of law, does not apply.” Further, appellant contends that our application of Rule 1.525 in her case conflicts with Stone v. Stone, 132 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), where we applied Probate Rule 5.025(d)(2), and not Rule 1.525, to determine the timeliness of a motion for costs. Probate Rule 5.025(d)(2) was modified in 2011 “to insure that an award of attorneys’ fees in a probate or guardi…
Authorities Cited
- Kaynan Fitchner v. Lifesouth Cmty. Blood Ctrs., Inc., 88 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Smith v. Smith, 902 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Sullivan v. State, 902 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Montello v. Montello, 961 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2007)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules, 95 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 2012)