FREDERICK (JUNIOR) BOWLES AND MARY LEE BOWLES, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
IN RE THE ESTATE OF BELLE WATSON, 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.
The appellants, Frederick and Mary Lee Bowles, sought reversal of an order dissolving a lis pendens notice, striking their claim against an estate, and denying their motion for extension of time to file suit. The court reversed, finding that the appellants did not receive proper notice of the objection to their claim and thus were entitled to an extension of time under Florida statute.
The trial court erred in not extending the time to file the action. The appellants showed good cause for an extension under F.S. § 733.18(2) because they did not receive notice of the objection to their claim, and the appellee failed to take alternative service measures despite knowledge that registered mail had failed.
[1] A trial court errs in denying a motion for an extension of time to file an action when the moving party demonstrates good cause, such as failure to receive notice of obje…
[2] A party seeking to rely on the statutory time period for service of objections to a claim must make reasonable efforts to ensure proper service, even after initial attemp…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“F.S. § 733.18(2) permits the trial judge to extend the time for filing suit for good cause shown.”
Establishes the statutory basis allowing trial courts discretion to extend filing deadlines when good cause is shown.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed a claim against the Estate of Belle Watson and filed a notice of lis pendens. The appellee served an objection to the claim by regist…
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 Good Cause For Extension cases and more on FLexlaw
JOHNSON, Judge.
Appellants seek reversal of an order dissolving notice of lis pendens, striking appellants’ claim against the Estate and denying appellants’ motion for an extension of time to file their action.
We have heard oral argument in this cause and have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. Upon our consideration thereof, we conclude that the trial court erred in not extending the time within which to file the action against the Estate. The rec-cord illustrates that appellants never received the registered mail containing appel-lee’s objections to appellants’ claim against the Estate. The record also illustrates that the undelivered letter was returned to the appellee’s attorney four days before the statutory time period ran for the service of the objection. No attempt, however, was made by appellee to personally serve appellants even though appellee was aware that service by registered mail had failed. Also, from the notice of lis pendens filed by appellants’ attorney, appellee’s attorney should have been aware that appellants’ counsel was involved in this case. Still, appellee’s counsel failed to take any additional steps to assure that appellants were properly served with the objections to claim before the running of the statutory time period.
F.S. § 733.18(2) permits the trial judge to extend the time for filing suit for good cause shown. Our review of the record herein leads us to conclude that appellants did not receive notice of the objection to their claim and thus showed good cause for the granting of an extension of time in which to file their action.
The Order appealed herein is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.
RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.