IN RE THE ESTATE OF BARBARA PUZZO, DECEASED. PETER PUZZO AND ROBIN PUZZO, APPELLANTS,
v.
IN RE THE ESTATE OF BARBARA PUZZO, 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 claims filed by known or ascertainable creditors should not be stricken as untimely if filed within statutory limits after notice of administration.
Appellants sought to extend the time to file claims against an estate, asserting they did not receive proper notice of administration. The personal re…
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 Notice Of Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse an order denying Appellants’ petition to extend the time for filing a claim against the estate and granting the estate’s motion to strike Appellants’ claims as untimely. Appellants, one of whom is a beneficiary in addition to being a claimant, asserted by affidavits that they were not served notice of administration in accordance with the mandate of section 733.212(4)(a), Florida Statutes, though the record reflects that the personal representative, claimants’ son and brother, respectively, was on notice of at least one of their claims. No proof of service appears in the record.
Due process considerations require that Appellants be furnished notice so that they can determine that the time for filing claims has commenced. See Tulsa Professional Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 108 S.Ct. 1340, 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988). However, regardless of whether or not the claimants had actual notice, section 733.702(1), Florida Statutes, does not bar the claim of a creditor required to be served with a copy of the notice of administration, unless barred by section 733.710, until the later of the 3-month period following publication or SO days after service of notice on the creditor. The latter period had not begun to run at the time Appellants’ claims were filed.
We remand for the trial court to determine as to which of Appellant’s claims they were known or ascertainable creditors. Any such claims, though filed after the 3-month period, should not have been stricken as untimely if filed prior to the earlier of 30 days after service of notice of administration or 2 years after the decedent’s death.
DELL, C.J., and STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Tr. Co. OF Fla. Sav. Bank v. General and Mrs. Alexander M. Haig, Jr., 694 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…by any means that is certain to ensure actual notice of the running of the non-claim period. Pope, 485 U.S. at 491, 108 S.Ct. at 1348; American & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Dimson, 645 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(en bane). See also In re Estate of Puzzo, 637 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, actual notice is only owed to ascertainable creditors. Such notice is not due to contingent or conjectural claimants. Because we find that Appellees were contingent claimants, they were not entitled to actual notice. T…
-
Jones v. Golden, 176 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 2015)…he date that is 3 months after the time of the first publication of the notice to creditors or ... 30 days after the date of service on the creditor.” The court instead followed Fourth District precedent established in In re Es [*247] tate of Puzzo, 637 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), in which the court stated: Due process considerations require that Appellants be furnished notice so that they can determine that the time for filing claims has commenced. However, regardless of whether or not the claimants had…
-
Edward I. Golden as Curator of the Estate of Katherine Jones v. Jones, 126 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…month period following publication of notice of administration, should not be stricken as untimely if filed prior to the earlier of 30 days after service of notice of administration or two years after the decedent’s death. See In re Estate of Puzzo, 637 So. 2d 26, 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In Puzzo, the creditors appealed an order denying a petition to extend the time for filing a claim against the estate and granting the estate’s motion to strike the creditors’ claims as untimely. Explaining that the persona…
Authorities Cited
- Tulsa Prof'l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1988)