DOROTHEA CHASE TURNER, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM H. TURNER, JR., DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIE MYERS, 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 court held that the probate judge did not abuse discretion in granting an extension of time for filing suit on claims against an estate. The court also affirmed the denial of a petition for compulsory payment of claims based on prior precedent.
A claimant filed claims against an estate. The estate objected but served objections by regular mail. The claimant petitioned for compulsory payment, …
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 Claim Against Estate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dorothea Turner, executrix of the estate of William Turner, deceased, appeals an order granting the petition of claimant, Marie Myers, for extension of time for filing suit. Ms. Myers cross-appeals from that portion of the order denying her petition for compulsory payment of claims.
On June 6, 1974 Ms. Myers filed two claims against the Turner estate through her attorneys. On July 9 the attorney for the estate filed objections and served them by regular mail on Ms. Myers’ attorneys. Ms. Myers petitioned for compulsory payment of the claims on the ground that she was never served personally or by registered mail as required by § 733.18(2), Fla. Stat. and, therefore, the objections are deemed to have been abandoned. The petition was denied. Whereupon, Ms. Myers filed a motion for rehearing and a petition for extension of time for filing suit. The trial judge entered an order granting extension of time for filing suit and denying the motion for rehearing.
Dorothea Turner alleges the granting of the extension of time was error. We cannot agree.
The decision to grant or deny a petition for the extension of time for filing suit (pursuant to § 733.18(2), Fla.Stat.) is within the sound discretion of the probate judge and the record fails to reflect an abuse of that discretion. See Smoak v. Graham, Fla.1964, 167 So. 2d 559; In re Estate of Sale, Fla.1969, 227 So. 2d 199.
We also considered Ms. Myers’ cross-appeal and find that the issue she raises has been adversely determined by the holding In re Estate of Brugh, Fla.App.1975, 306 So. 2d 599.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marlin B. Arky v. Harris, 504 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…state of Jeffries, 136 Fla. 410, 181 So. 833 (1938); Williams v. Estate of Williams, 493 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In Re Estate of Oxford, 372 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Mautner v. Loman, 353 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Turner v. Myers, 332 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Furthermore, the personal representative is required to file a notice when a civil action has been instituted by or against the personal representative in the estate matter. See Rule 5.065(a) Fla. R.P. & G.P.2 Therefore, the orde…
-
Mautner v. Loman, 353 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…hat the presumption of correctness attached to the Probate Court’s order has not been overcome, as appellant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of the probate judge’s discretion in granting the aforementioned extension of time. See Turner v. Myers, 332 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Henrietta S. Sale, 227 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1969)
- Smoak v. Graham, 167 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1964)
- In re Est. of Allen Lee Brugh v. Freas, 306 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)