MARIA A. ZAYAS-HOOD AND MARIA C. GRAVES, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHELLE A. JUSINO AND STEPHANIE E. JUSINO AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF MARIBEL ZAYAS, 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.
The trial court lacked authority to suspend an order compelling payment of a claim against an estate or to extend time for filing an objection where an order compelling payment had already been entered.
A trial court lacks authority under Florida law to suspend an order compelling payment of a claim against an estate or to grant an extension of time to file an objection to a claim after such a payment order has been entered.
[1] Section 733.705(2), Florida Statutes, which permits extension of time for filing objections to estate claims, does not authorize suspension of an order already entered co…
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 intelligenceAppellants Maria A. Zayas-Hood and Maria C. Graves obtained an order compelling payment of their claim against the estate of Maribel Zayas. The trial …
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 Estate Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, Maria A. Zayas-Hood and Maria C. Graves, appeal an order suspending a prior order that compelled payment of their claim against the estate of Appel-lees’ mother and granting Appellees’ motion for an extension of time to file an objection to the claim. We agree with Appellants that the trial court lacked authority to relieve Appellees from the order compelling payment of the claim. Section 733.705(2), Florida Statutes, providing that a court may extend the time for filing or serving an objection to a claim against an estate, does not address a situation where an order has been entered compelling payment of a claim. We also agree with Appellants that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 was not available to relieve Appellees from the order compelling payment. Florida Probate Rule 5.010 provides that “[t]he Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply only as provided herein.” Neither rule 5.490, the probate rule addressing the form and manner of presenting claims against an estate, nor rule 5.496, the probate rule addressing the form and manner of objecting to claims, makes any mention of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, while rule 5.025 provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure apply in adversarial probate proceedings, the proceeding at issue was not a “specific adversary proceeding” pursuant to rule 5.025(a). Nor had it been declared an adversary proceeding pursuant to rule 5.025(b) or (c) when the order compelling payment was entered.
*627Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND.
DAVIS, PADOVANO, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re The Est. OF Jorge Luis Arroyo, Jr. v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., 211 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…y moved to intervene, Infinity could not rely on rule 1.230 to intervene in the probate proceedings. Accordingly, it was reversible error for the probate court to grant Infinity’s motion to intervene pursuant to rule 1.230, See Zayas-Hood v. Jusino, 44 So. 3d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (reversing the probate court’s order suspending a prior order and holding that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 was not available in a non-adversary probate proceeding because it was not provided for within the Florida Proba…
-
Cartenuto v. In re The Est. of Margaret Nell Hunt (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)