LILLIAN E. BILLEWICZ, APPELLANT,
v.
MARCUS MACRAE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT BILLEWICZ, AND JULIA MACRAEBILLEWICZ, 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.
Lillian Billewicz appealed three circuit court orders denying her intervention in a dissolution case and quashing a quitclaim deed to real property. The appellate court affirmed all three orders but clarified that the circuit court's rulings on property ownership are not binding on Billewicz since she was not a party to the litigation and had no notice or opportunity to be heard.
The circuit court properly denied all three motions to intervene and properly quashed the deed. However, the court's rulings regarding ownership and title to the properties are not binding on Billewicz because she was not authorized to intervene, never became a party, and therefore had no notice or opportunity to be heard.
[1] A party seeking to intervene in an action must be granted leave to intervene before their claims can be adjudicated.
[2] A court lacks personal jurisdiction over a non-party, and therefore cannot adjudicate their claims to property, without proper notice and an opportunity to be heard.
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“the circuit court never entered an order authorizing Ms. Billewicz to intervene in the proceedings below, and she never became a party to the litigation. Thus ms. Billewicz never had notice or an opportunity to be heard on her claims to ownership of the Sunrise Court property and the Canadian condominium, and the circuit court had no personal jurisdiction over Ms. Billewicz to adjudicate her claims to these properties.”
Establishes why the circuit court's ownership rulings are not binding on Billewicz
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Billewicz's marriage to Julia MacRae-Billewicz was being dissolved. Lillian Billewicz attempted to intervene in the dissolution action and asse…
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 Adjudication Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
In these consolidated appeals, Lillian E. Billewicz (Ms. Billewicz) challenges three orders entered in the circuit court: (1) an order denying her motion to intervene in an action for the dissolution of the marriage of Robert Billewicz and Julia Mac-Rae-Billewicz; (2) an order quashing a quitclaim deed executed by Robert Billew-icz purporting to transfer property commonly known as 165 Sunrise Court, Naples, Florida, to Lillian E. Billewicz; and (3) an order denying Ms. Billewicz’s motion to “intervene regarding joint motion of Julia MacRae-Billewicz and Marcus MacRae, Executor of the Estate of Robert Warren Billewicz, to finalize title to the Canadian condominium.” We find no reversible error in any of the three orders entered by the circuit court. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s orders.
Nevertheless, we note that the order quashing the deed to the Sunrise Court property in Naples states that the “[o]wn-ership of said real estate is now held by MARCUS MACRAE, duly appointed Executor of the Estate of Robert W. Billew-icz.” We also note that additional language appearing in an order denying one of Ms. Billewicz’s multiple motions to intervene states that the Canadian condominium “belongs solely to Julia MacRae-Billewicz and is not subject to any claim of Lillian E. Billewicz.” To the extent that Lillian E. Billewicz has claims to these properties, we regard this language as sur-plusage. The circuit court never entered an order authorizing Ms. Billewicz to intervene in the proceedings below, and she never became a party to the litigation. Thus Ms. Billewicz never had notice or an opportunity to be heard on her claims to ownership of the Sunrise Court property and the Canadian condominium, and the circuit court had no personal jurisdiction over Ms. Billewicz to adjudicate her claims to these properties. It follows that the circuit court’s rulings about the ownership of or title to the Sunrise Court property and the Canadian condominium are not binding on Ms. Billewicz. See Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Shattuck, 132 So.3d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Undoubtedly, Ms. Billewicz may pursue her claims to these properties in an appropriate forum.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, WALLACE, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.