HILDA M. FORD, AS TRUSTEE OF GILBERT I. FORD TRUST, OF 1990, APPELLANT,
v.
HILDA M. FORD AND JAMES R. FORD, 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.
Hilda Ford, as trustee of her deceased husband's inter vivos trust, petitioned for summary administration of his estate and to determine homestead property. The trial court denied both petitions, but the appellate court reversed the denial of summary administration while affirming the denial of the homestead determination petition, finding that since the decedent owned no real property at death (having conveyed it to the trust), there was no basis for the probate court to determine homestead property.
The court held that summary administration should have been granted because there was no real property in the estate, but reversed the determination that the court could identify homestead property when the decedent owned no real property at death, as probate rules require that homestead property be 'owned by the decedent' at the time of his death.
[1] A probate court cannot determine homestead property when the decedent owned no real property at the time of death.
[2] A petition for summary administration may be granted when the decedent's estate contains no real property.
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“We find the court erred in not permitting summary administration since, according to the unrefuted petition, there was no real property (including homestead) in the estate.”
Establishes that summary administration should have been granted when the estate contained no real property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 1990, Gilbert I. Ford conveyed property including his former homestead into an inter vivos trust naming his wife as sole beneficiary and e…
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 Interested Person cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
In February, 1990, apparently in contemplation of death, Gilbert I. Ford, joined by his wife, conveyed property (including his former homestead) into an inter vivos trust naming his wife as sole beneficiary. On the same date he executed a will leaving certain personal property to his wife with the rest of his estate “poured over” into the trust. Ford died in April, 1990. He was survived by his wife and an adult son.
In September, 1990, Hilda Ford as “beneficiary” under Ford’s will petitioned for summary administration of his estate claiming that there were no assets of the estate.1 She also, at the time of filing the petition for summary administration but as trustee of the trust, filed an amended petition to determine homestead real property in order to satisfy the requirement of her title insurer. It is apparent from the petition that because of the previous conveyance to the trust, Ford owned no real property at the time of his death.2
The trial court denied both petitions finding that it could not determine homestead property until formal notice was published.
We find the court erred in not permitting summary administration since, according to the unrefuted petition, there was no real property (including homestead) in the estate.
But in agreeing with appellant on this point, we must necessarily disagree with her on her second argument. If there is no real property in the estate, then there is no authority for the probate court to determine homestead property.
Appellant relies on Florida Probate Rule 5.405 which permits any “interested person” to petition the court to' determine “homestead real property owned by the decedent.” The rule further requires that the petition describe the property “owned by the decedent.” We construe this to mean owned by the decedent at the time of his death. Both the petition for summary administration and the petition to determine homestead property deny that the decedent owned any real property at the time of his death.
Regardless of the demands of the title insurance industry, the Probate Rules are not a substitute for declaratory judgment actions or quiet title suits. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ„ concur. . Petitioner failed to list the personal property which the will left directly to her. . The conveyance into the trust has not been challenged on any grounds including undue influence or incapacity.