SOPHIE RUZA, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTATE OF JOSEPH M. RUZA, DECEASED, APPELLEE; STANLEY RUZA AND MARTIN RUZA, APPELLANTS, V. ESTATE OF JOSEPH M. RUZA, DECEASED, 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.
In this intestate succession case, the court addressed whether the federal government could claim unpaid gift taxes from a deceased's estate after missing the statutory filing deadline, and whether insurance policy proceeds payable to the estate were subject to such claims or protected under Florida's homestead and family allowance statutes.
The court affirmed the dismissal of Sophie Ruza's appeal, holding that the United States' claim was not barred by Florida's non-claim statute because the insurance proceeds never became part of the estate. However, the court remanded Stanley and Martin Ruza's appeal, holding that under Florida Statute § 222.13, insurance policy proceeds payable to the estate must be paid to the personal representative for the benefit of surviving children and spouse, and the insurance proceeds should not have been treated as general estate assets subject to creditor claims.
“a claim of the United States is not barred by a state's non-claim statute. However, this rule is not applicable or of benefit to the United States for the obvious reason that the funds claimed never became a part of the estate.”
Establishes that while federal claims generally are not subject to state non-claim statutes, the rule does not apply when the claimed funds never entered the estate in the first place.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph M. Ruza died intestate with approximately $680 in banks plus $10,000 in life insurance proceeds payable to his estate. The estate's heirs were …
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 Gift Tax Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Joseph M. Ruza died intestate. Sophie Ruza is his divorced wife, who holds certain judgments against Joseph M. Ruza.1 Stanley Ruza and Martin Ruza are the children of Joseph M. Ruza, deceased. The estate of Joseph M. Ruza consisted of approximately $680 cash in banks to which was added by the administrator, without objection of the children who were the sole heirs of the deceased, the proceeds of a life insurance policy upon the life of the deceased which was payable to the estate. From these assets there was paid with full knowledge of the heirs, the cost of administration of the estate and the costs of the collection of the $10,000 insurance proceeds.
The deceased is indebted to the United States for gift taxes incurred in 1954, 1955 and 1956. These taxes were assessed on June 19, 1959 and, although the time for filing a claim in the estate of Joseph M. Ruza had expired under the provisions of section 733.16(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.2, the United States petitioned the county judge’s court for payment of the government’s claim out of the assets of the estate. The county judge ordered payment of the claim from the insurance proceeds.
Sophie Ruza filed her appeal from the last mentioned order and asserts here that the order was error because the United States was barred by delay and failure to prosecute its claim against the grantees under the provisions of section 6324(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 1954, 26 U. S.C.A. § 6324(b), and upon the further ground that the claim of the United States is barred by the failure of the United States to file the claim within eight months, as provided by Florida law.3 Thereafter Stanley Ruza and Martin Ruza, the children and heirs of Joseph Ruza, deceased, who were appellees in the appeal brought by Sophie Ruza, filed their appeal from the same order and urge error in this court upon the ground that the order entered improperly ignored section 222.13, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. which provides, among other things, that where a person dies intestate leaving the proceeds of an insurance policy payable to his estate, that the proceeds of the policy shall: “ * * * be paid to the personal representative of the insured’s estate for the benefit of the surviving child or children and husband or wife in equal proportions * * We cannot find in the record that this point was ever presented in the county judge’s court and, therefore, conclude that it is urged for the first time in this court.
Examination of the record in the light of the briefs in the appeal of Sophie Ruza, reveals no error. See United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 84 L.Ed. 1283. The cited case states that a claim of the United States is not barred by a state’s non-claim statute. However, this rule is not applicable or of benefit to the United States for the obvious reason that the funds claimed never became a part of the estate.
Under ordinary circumstances, error may not be urged in the appellate court upon matters not presented to the trial court. E. g., South Dade Farms v. Peters, Fla.1958, 107 So.2d 30; Nelson v. Cravero Constructors, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 764, 766. In this instance, it appears that the parties have treated certain funds as assets of the estate contrary to the provisions of the Florida Statutes. Since, under this statute, the proceeds of the insurance policy never became an asset of the estate, it is necessary for us to hold that *310the persons entitled to these proceeds have not waived their right to the remainder of said funds by their failure to assert such a claim in the estate. Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed upon the appeal of Sophie Ruza, and upon the appeal of Stanley Ruza and Martin Ruza the cause is remanded to the county judge’s court for a ruling in accord with section 222.13, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.
Remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Agency FOR Health Care Admin. v. In re Est. OF Kevin Johnson, 743 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…2 C.F.R. § 433.10. See also § 409.910(a)(25)(I), Fla. Stat. It is settled that a federal claim is entirely unaffected by the non-claim statute. See United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 84 L.Ed. 1283 (1940); Ruza v. Ruza’s Estate, 132 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). As a result, in order for AHCA to collect the federal monies advanced to the decedent, it was not even necessary that the “lien” be filed in the Official Records Book. The more interesting question then is what happens to the mo…
-
Zeidel v. Est. of Hyman Rosenberg, 357 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…it asserts a claim on identifiable property held by the estate and alleges that such property is not a proper part of the estate. Hodges v. Logan, 82 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1955); Fisher v. Creamer, 332 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Ruza v. Estate of Ruza, 132 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). No extension of time within which to file such a suit was therefore necessary under the non-claim statute as the suit can be maintained independent of the non-claim statute. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1940)
- Nelson v. Cravero Constructors, Inc., 117 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- S. Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, 107 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1958)
- Morgenstern v. Ruza, 101 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)