PATRICK HANNAN
v.
GAIL DOYLE
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.
Patrick Hannan appealed a trial court's dismissal of his complaint against Gail Doyle, the former personal representative of his grandmother's estate, for breach of an alleged oral agreement and breach of fiduciary duty regarding unpaid probate proceeds. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice based on judicial notice of probate records and found the claims barred by Florida Probate Code section 733.901 and res judicata. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that section 733.901 bars actions against a personal representative after discharge.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that section 733.901 of Florida's Probate Code bars any action against a personal representative after the personal representative has been discharged, absent allegations of fraud by concealment or other wrongful acts. The claims were properly dismissed because they fell within the statutory bar and were subject to res judicata.
[1] Under section 733.901(2) of the Florida Probate Code, the discharge of a personal representative bars any subsequent action against the personal representative, except wh…
[2] Res judicata and collateral estoppel may be raised by motion to dismiss when the face of the complaint demonstrates the existence of such defenses.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Section 733.901(2), Florida Statutes (2003), specifically bars a subsequent action against a personal representative upon the discharge of the personal representative.”
Citation to Carraway v. Carraway explaining the scope of the statutory bar.
Hannan's grandmother's estate was administered in Miami-Dade County probate proceedings, with Gail Doyle serving as personal representative. After the…
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 Judicial Notice Of Court Records cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 9, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-1751 Lower Tribunal No. 21-2318 CC ________________
Patrick Hannan,
Appellant,
vs.
Gail Doyle,
Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Miesha S. Darrough, Judge. Nation Lawyers Chartered, and Jonathan Jaffe (Sunrise), for appellant. Rennert Vogel Mandler & Rodriguez, P.A., and Thomas S. Ward, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Patrick Hannan, the plaintiff below, appeals the trial court’s July 28, 2021 final order dismissing, with prejudice, his complaint against the defendant below, Gail Doyle. Hannan’s two-count complaint alleged that Doyle – who had served as the personal representative for the estate of Hannan’s grandmother in a now closed Miami-Dade County probate proceeding1 – had breached a purported oral agreement (count I), as well as her fiduciary duties (count II), by failing to pay Hannan “$16,000 to satisfy his portion of the probate proceeds.” In the challenged order dismissing Hannan’s complaint, the trial court took judicial notice of the probate records in the estate case and determined that Hannan’s claims were barred by section 733.901 of Florida’s Probate Code2 and res judicata. Finding no error, we affirm. See § 90.202(6), Fla. Stat. (2020) (providing for judicial notice of court records); § 90.203, Fla. Stat. (2020) (providing for compulsory 1 See In Re: Estate of Janet E. Hannan, Case No. 15-5210 CP (03). 2 The statute provides:
(1) After administration has been completed, the personal representative shall be discharged. (2) The discharge of the personal representative shall release the personal representative and shall bar any action against the personal representative, as such or individually, and the surety. § 733.901, Fla. Stat. (2020).
judicial notice upon the request of a party); Ramos v. Mast, 789 So. 2d 1226, 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“Although res judicata and collateral estoppel are affirmative defenses which cannot ordinarily be raised by motion to dismiss, an exception is made when the face of the complaint is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the defense.”); see also § 733.901(2), Fla. Stat. (2020); Sims v. Barnard, 257 So. 3d 630, 631-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (recognizing that, absent allegations of fraud by concealment or other wrongful acts, section 733.901 generally bars suits against a personal representative after the discharge of the personal representative); Carraway
v. Carraway, 883 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Section 733.901(2),
Florida Statutes (2003), specifically bars a subsequent action against a personal representative upon the discharge of the personal representative.
Although section 733.903 and Florida Probate Rule 5.460(a) allow further administration of the estate if it is required for any reason, Florida case law appears to only permit the reopening of an estate after the discharge of the personal representative where there were procedural irregularities or facts constituting fraud or bad faith.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ramos v. Mast, 789 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Carraway v. Carraway, 883 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Sims v. Barnard, 257 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)