EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK OF WINTER HAVEN, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD D. FIELD, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNETTE FEATHERSTONE FIELD AND MARY MICHELLE FIELD, 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.
This case concerns whether a probate court properly granted an extension for claimants to file suit against an estate after the estate's executor objected to their claims. The appellate court found that the claimants' reason for delay did not constitute "good cause" as required by statute.
No, the probate court erred in granting the extension. The claimants' desire to ascertain the estate's assets did not constitute "good cause" for delaying the filing of their suits beyond the statutory deadline.
[1] A claimant must file suit on a claim against an estate within one month after receipt of service of the personal representative's objection to that claim.
[2] A probate court may extend the time for bringing suit upon a claim against an estate for good cause shown.
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“A claimant is required to file suit on his claim within one month after receipt of service of the personal representative’s objection to that claim.”
Establishes the statutory deadline for filing suit after an objection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCreditors filed claims against an estate, and the executor objected. The claimants then requested an extension to file suit, stating they needed to se…
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
BOARDMAN, Judge.
Appellant, executor of the estate of Richard D. Field, deceased, filed this timely appeal from an order of the probate court granting appellees’ motion for an extension of time to file suits on their claims against the estate of the decedent. Notice of creditors was published by appellant on January 14 and 21, 1975. On May 12 appellees filed their claims in the probate court, and on May 20 appellant filed objections to those claims furnishing copies thereof to appellees and their counsel. Appellant refused appellees’ June 17 request to settle their claims. The court granted appellant’s motion filed on July 9 extending the time for filing the inventory of the estate until September 1. The inventory was filed August 29. On December 5, 1975 appellees filed their motion for an extension alleging that they required additional time to file their actions.
A claimant is required to file suit on his claim within one month after receipt of service of the personal representative’s objection to that claim. Section 733.18, Florida Statutes (1973). In this case appel-lees were required to file their suits on or before June 27. We are aware that the probate code vests discretion in the court to extend the time for bringing suit upon good cause shown. Section 733.18, Florida Statutes (1973); In re Estate of Sale, 227 So. 2d 199 (Fla.1969). The Florida supreme court has restricted good cause for an extension to “a substantial reason” which constitutes a legal excuse. In re Goldman’s Estate, 79 So. 2d 846 (Fla.1955). Appellees’ contention that they delayed filing their suits until the inventory showed whether there were sufficient assets in the estate to satisfy their claims does not meet the standard established in In re Goldman’s Estate. In our judgment the absence of good cause to justify the extension of time is particularly apparent in that appellees did not file their suits until more than three months after the inventory was filed.
Accordingly we
REVERSE.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.W. Williams and Lois W. Mize v. The Est. OF Roy Levon Williams, 493 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…199 (Fla.1969). In cases where “good cause” has not been found to have been shown, there has been an inordinant or unexplained delay in filing the independent claim or seeking permission to do so. In Exchange National Bank of Winter Haven v. Field, 338 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 346 So. 2d 1248 (Fla.1977), the claimant was over six months late in seeking a time extension, and the reason given for the delay did not explain the additional three-months delay after claimant’s alleged excuse had…
-
In re the Est. of James Riha v. Harding, 369 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…o tunc order of June 8, 1978. We are aware that the appellant had the burden of showing a substantial reason which constitutes a legal excuse. In re Goldman’s Estate, 79 So. 2d 846 (Fla.1955); [*405] Exchange National Bank of Winter Haven v. Field, 338 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Since the record of the hearing is not before us on appeal, we must assume that the trial court correctly found good cause for granting appellant an extension. South Florida Apartment Association, Inc. v. Dansyear, 347 So. 2d 710…
-
In re the Est. of Daniel J. Dezso, 382 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ility to “trace certain assets in the possession of the decedent necessary to proceed” is not any more of a legal excuse than [*401] was the delay in filing suit because of the absence of inventory in Exchange National Bank of Winter Haven v. Field, 338 So. 2d 889 (Fla.2d DCA 1976), cert. den. 346 So. 2d 1248 (Fla.1977). The lack of familiarity with the Florida Probate Code alleged in paragraph 4 is precisely “ignorance of the law,” which was expressly rejected in In re Goldman’s Estate, supra. The order of…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Est. of Genevieve Lorraine Livingston Goldman v. Jensen, 79 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1955)
- In re Est. of Henrietta S. Sale, 227 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1969)