Simpson v. Estate of Simpson
| Decision Date | 17 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D05-333.,5D05-333. |
| Parties | Mark R. SIMPSON and Robert L. Simpson, Appellants, v. ESTATE OF H. James SIMPSON, Jr., etc., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas P. Callan, G. Robertson Dilg, and Timothy A. Dix, of Thomas P. Callan, P.A., Orlando; Charles W. Sell of Shuffield Lowman, Orlando; and Thomas W. Brown of Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Bullock, P.A., Lake City, for Appellants.
Marc L. Lubet and Lisa A. Franchina, Orlando, for Appellee.
Mark Simpson and his father, Robert Simpson, appeal a final order discharging the personal representative, Anita Simpson, in the estate of James ("Jim") Simpson. They argue that the probate court abused its discretion in finding, in a prior order, that Mark was not a reasonably ascertainable creditor of Jim's estate. We agree and reverse.
Jim Simpson died on June 29, 2001. His wife and personal representative of his estate, Anita Simpson, filed her petition for administration on July 31, 2001. She published notice of administration on September 11 and 18, 2001.
On March 15, 2002, Jim and Anita's nephew, Mark Simpson, petitioned the probate court to allow him to file a late claim against Jim's estate. Mark alleged entitlement to 10.5 shares in the Mount Dora Groves Company, one of the Simpson family's citrus businesses, and asked the court to extend the time in which to file a claim on the grounds of fraud, estoppel and insufficient notice. Mark also filed an independent action in the circuit court. That action is being held in abeyance pending resolution of this appeal.
After an evidentiary hearing, the probate court concluded that Mark was not a reasonably ascertainable creditor of Jim's estate because his claim was that of a potential donee of an unexecuted gift, rather than that of one who is entitled to shares held in trust. Shortly thereafter, the court discharged Anita as the personal representative and this appeal ensued.
A probate court's determination of whether someone is a reasonably ascertainable claimant is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Miller v. Estate of Baer, 837 So.2d 448, 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Section 733.701, Florida Statutes (2001)1 requires the personal representative to serve notice of administration on known or reasonably ascertainable creditors of the estate. Due process also requires that a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor be given notice of the commencement of probate proceedings. Strulowitz v. Cadle Co., 839 So.2d 876, 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 108 S.Ct. 1340, 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988)). If the personal representative fails to serve notice upon a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor, the creditor may seek an extension of time in which to file his claim based on fraud, estoppel or insufficient notice of the claims period. § 733.702(3), Fla. Stat.
Neither the parties nor the probate court disputed the fact that Mark's identity was reasonably ascertainable to Anita. He was her nephew. The issue was whether his claim was reasonably ascertainable. As noted in Strulowitz, "it is not just the claimant's identity but its `claim' that must be reasonably ascertainable." 839 So.2d at 880.
The undisputed evidence establishes that Mark's claim was not only reasonably ascertainable, it was known to Anita. Robert testified that shortly after Jim died, Anita said to him, "We've got to make sure Mark gets his stock." However, after Mark turned 21 on September 17, Anita changed her position, stating, "I can't do anything to get the stock to Mark for his 21st birthday because it's all tied up in the probate court, and we can't touch it." Then, on October 2, 2001, Robert wrote a letter to Anita asking her to give Mark the 10.5 shares of stock. Clearly, Anita had actual knowledge of Mark's potential claim.
Instead of ending its inquiry there, the probate court proceeded to determine the validity of Mark's claim. Under the applicable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Justice v. State, 2D06-2816.
-
Morgenthau v. Estate of Andzel
...motion for extension of time to file a claim where no evidence was considered prior to the grant); Simpson v. Estate of Simpson, 922 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (reviewing trial court's denial of appellant's motion for extension of time based on the allegation he was a readily ascertaina......
-
N. Trust Co. v. Abbott
...party to file both an objection and a motion to strike a statement of claim, as Northern Trust did here. See Simpson v. Estate of Simpson, 922 So. 2d 1027, 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ; Bell, 366 So. 2d at 767. A motion to strike tests the facial sufficiency of the statement of claim, whereas ......
-
Cantero v. Caswell
...with Notice to Creditors. The present case is distinguishable from the cases relied upon by Mr. Cantero. See Simpson v. Estate of Simpson, 922 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (finding the personal representative had actual knowledge of creditor's claim where testimony established she made s......