Bryan v. Fernald, Case No. 2D15–4830

• Decision Date: 22 February 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 2D15–4830
• Citation: 211 So.3d 333
• Parties: Audrey A. BRYAN, Appellant, v. Gary M. FERNALD, as Administrator Ad Litem, and Edward John, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

211 So.3d 333

Audrey A. BRYAN, Appellant,

v.Gary M. FERNALD, as Administrator Ad Litem, and Edward John, Appellees.

Case No. 2D15–4830

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2017.

Ann M. Allison of Allison Law Group, Temple Terrace; and Mary Ann Noud, Bradenton, for Appellant.

Wil H. Florin and Eric P. Czelusta, Palm Harbor, for Appellees.

MORRIS, Judge.

Audrey A. Bryan appeals an order on her petition to determine beneficiaries in the probate proceedings of her deceased mother's estate.¹ In determining the beneficiaries, the trial court concluded that the issue of the validity of the decedent's marriage was res judicata. We disagree and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I. Background

In 2007, Edward John opened the probate proceedings of the decedent's estate. John named himself as the decedent's surviving spouse and only known beneficiary. The decedent's children were not served with any pleadings or orders in the probate case. In March 2009, the probate court entered an order of discharge, finding that the estate had been properly distributed and discharging John as personal representative. In June 2009, John petitioned to reopen the estate in order to pursue a medical malpractice claim against the doctor who treated the decedent before she died, Dr. Scott Plantz. The petition was served on the decedent's four children, including Bryan. The estate was reopened, and the estate filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Plantz. In 2012, Gary M. Fernald was appointed as administrator ad litem for the estate.

In 2015, Bryan filed a petition to determine intestate beneficiaries pursuant to section 733.105, Florida Statutes (2014), in the probate proceeding. In her petition, Bryan alleged that she and the decedent's three other children were not notified of the administration of their mother's estate. Bryan alleged that she and her siblings are entitled by law to an equal share of at least fifty percent of their mother's estate and that if John cannot produce a valid marriage certificate proving that he was legally married to the decedent, Bryan and her siblings are entitled to an equal share of one hundred percent of the decedent's estate. John and Fernald filed a response to Bryan's petition, alleging that Dr. Plantz was behind Bryan's petition. The response set forth numerous allegations of misconduct by Dr. Plantz in the pending medical malpractice case and the probate case. In response to Bryan's allegations, John and Fernald argued that John was lawfully married to the decedent at the time of her death and that this issue was already determined in a 2013 order in the medical malpractice case. In the 2013 order, the trial court denied Plantz's amended motion for partial summary judgment on damages and found that "the person [John] married was the [d]ecedent."²

A hearing was held on Bryan's petition on August 26, 2015. John and Fernald were represented by counsel, and Dr. Plantz also appeared with counsel. The parties all agreed that Bryan and her siblings are beneficiaries of the estate, but they disputed the validity of the marriage between the decedent and John. Bryan's counsel argued that the issue was not controlled by the order in the medical malpractice case because that order was not a final order. The estate argued that the order constitutes a factual finding that John and the decedent were married at the time of the decedent's passing. The trial judge stated that he did not "know how [he could] go beyond that," and he wondered why he would "go back and reinvent the wheel that [the other judge] apparently spent considerable time and judicial energy on." Bryan responded that she and her siblings had not had the opportunity to argue the issue to any court, and the trial judge seemed to agree that "it's a due process issue." The estate's counsel argued that in depositions, Bryan and her sister did "not dispute that this was a valid and legal marriage." Bryan's deposition was read to the court, wherein she admitted that she witnessed her mother marry John in what appeared to be a valid wedding ceremony. Bryan's counsel then argued that Bryan did witness a wedding ceremony but that Bryan had no idea that her mother had obtained the marriage certificate under a false name and identity. The trial judge stated that he was not going to reverse the judge in the medical malpractice case and found that that order "is res judicata on the issue." He stated the following:

[T]his isn't a factual issue as I contemplated when I reviewed the file and prepared for the hearing today. I think that I make a determination based upon the uncontested part of it with regard to the four adult children of the decedent and I make a ruling based on the findings of [the medical malpractice] order directly on point that I think is res judicata on the issue of the marriage and find that Mr. John was the spouse of the decedent.

In the written order, the trial court determined that Bryan and her three siblings are beneficiaries and that John is also a beneficiary as the decedent's spouse. The trial court found that based on the earlier order in the separate medical malpractice case, res judicata applies and controls the issue of the validity of the marriage between John and the decedent. The trial court found that deposition evidence further established the validity of the marriage.

II. Analysis

On appeal, Bryan first argues that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply because the requirements for res judicata were not satisfied. Under the doctrine of res judicata,

[a] judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action.

Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano , 801 So.2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (quoting Kimbrell v. Paige , 448 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984) ). Thus, res judicata applies when the following four identities are present: "(1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made." Topps v. State , 865 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 2004). This court...