A. RUBEN LOPEZ, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
ANGEL RAUL LOPEZ HERNANDEZ, ET AL., APPELLEES; ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ PASTRANA, APPELLANT, V. SUCCESSION OF ANGEL LOPEZ MALDONADO, ET AL., 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.
Two appeals challenge a probate court's order distributing Angel Lopez Maldonado's estate and closing it. The court affirmed the distribution order, rejecting arguments by Maldonado's former wife that her claim should have been resolved before asset distribution and that a timely-filed claim should not have been struck.
The court affirmed the probate court's order. The argument about directing distribution while a claim was pending was not preserved for appellate review because Pastrana's counsel failed to object at the hearing. The 2010 order striking the 2007 claim is not reviewable in this appeal because Pastrana should have appealed that order timely.
[1] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a probate court's order striking a claim as untimely if the appeal is not filed within the time prescribed by the rules of…
[2] A party waives an argument on appeal if the party fails to object to the trial court's ruling during the proceedings.
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“this argument was not preserved for purposes of appellate review because, when Raul and Ruben asked the court to distribute the assets and close the estate, counsel for Pastrana did not object”
Establishes that Pastrana's failure to object at the probate court hearing waived her argument about premature distribution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAngel Lopez Maldonado married Elizabeth Hernandez Pastrana in Puerto Rico and had three sons, including Ruben. The marriage was dissolved in 1993 with…
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 Statement Of Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter involves two separate appeals arising from a probate court’s order distributing Angel Lopez Maldonado’s estate. Specifically, both the personal representative of the. estate, Maldonado’s son Ruben, and Maldonado’s former wife, Elizabeth Hernandez Pastrana, appeal the order entered by the probate court directing Ruben to distribute the estate’s assets and then close the estate. We affirm the probate court’s order, but write to address two claims of error raised by Pastrana.
Pastrana married Maldonado in Puerto Rico, and three sons were born during the marriage: Ruben, Raul, and Devis. In 1993, the couple’s marriage was dissolved by way of an order entered by a Puerto Rico court; however, the order did not distribute the parties’ marital assets. Thereafter, Maldonado re-located to Florida.
In 2005, Maldonado died. Ruben, as personal representative, filed a petition in Osceola County to establish and probate Maldonado’s will. Pastrana meanwhile filed a suit in Puerto Rico seeking an award of marital assets. Ultimately, the Puerto Rico court ruled that the marital assets totaled $415,424.39, and awarded one-half of the assets to Pastrana.
In March of 2006, Pastrana filed a motion seeking to intervene in the instant probate proceedings. She also filed an affidavit in which she set forth the facts relating to her Puerto Rico judgment and a claim against the estate.1 One year later, Pastrana filed a renewed motion to intervene as well as a statement of claim against the estate for her half of the marital assets. Raul filed an objection to Pas-trana’s 2007 claim on the ground that it was untimely filed. In 2010, the court *502entered an order striking Pastrana’s 2007 claim as untimely filed.
Ruben requested the probate court to close the estate. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion. During the hearing, Raul and Ruben both requested that the estate be distributed and then closed. Counsel for Pastrana made no objection. Accordingly, the court directed Ruben to distribute the assets and close the estate.
Pastrana challenges this ruling, arguing that the trial court erred by directing Ruben to distribute the assets and close the estate while her 2006 claim was still pending. However, this argument was not preserved for purposes of appellate review because, when Raul and Ruben asked the court to distribute the assets and close the estate, counsel for Pastrana did not object. See Keech v. Yousef, 815 So.2d 718, 719-20 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Pastrana also argues that the probate court reversibly erred in striking her 2007 statement of claim. However, this argument is without merit because the probate court struck the 2007 claim in 2010 and, therefore, we are without jurisdiction to review the issue in connection with our review of the court’s instant order; Pas-trana should have appealed the 2010 order in a timely manner. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b).
AFFIRMED.
COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Keech v. Sultan Yousef, 815 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)