EVA ZEIDEL, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTATE OF HYMAN ROSENBERG, LORRAINE SCHUSTER, AS SUCCESSOR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HYMAN ROSENBERG, AND EVELYN ROSENBERG, 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.
A replevin action claiming ownership of specific property held by an estate is not subject to the non-claim statute and therefore does not require an extension of time to file.
A replevin action asserting ownership of identifiable property held by an estate falls outside the non-claim statute and may be maintained without seeking an extension of time under that statute.
[1] A replevin action asserting that specific identifiable property held by an estate belongs to the plaintiff rather than the estate is not subject to the non-claim statute…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEva Zeidel appealed from a trial court order denying her motion for an extension of time to file an independent suit against the Estate of Hyman Rosen…
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 Statute Of Non-Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
The appellant Eva Zeidel appeals from an order entered in a probate proceeding before the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in which the trial court denied her motion for an extension of time within which to file an independent suit against the appellee Estate of Hyman Rosenberg pursuant to the non-claim statute [§ 733.705(3), Fla.Stat. (1975)]. In our view, the trial judge was eminently correct in denying the motion because the non-claim statute herein was inapplicable to the appellant Zeidel’s independent suit and thus no extension of time within which to file such suit was necessary under the statute.
The gravamen of the independent suit against the estate herein was a replevin action in which the appellant Zeidel asserts that certain bearer bonds held by the appel-lee estate belong in fact to the appellant and not to the estate. As such, the lawsuit falls outside the purview of the non-claim statute because 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hodges v. Logan, 82 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1955)
- Fisher v. Creamer, 332 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Ruza v. Est. of Joseph M. Ruza, 132 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)