Smith's Estate, In re, 2165
Decision Date | 16 August 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 2165,2165 |
Parties | In re ESTATE of Lincoln R. SMITH, a/k/a Lincoln Robert Smith, Deceased. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, a State Agency, Appellant, v. David John Joseph SMITH, as Administrator of the Estate of Lincoln R. Smith, a/k/a Lincoln Robert Smith, Deceased, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Burnis T. Coleman and Robert B. Kane, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Abrams & Anton, Hollywood, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final order wherein the County Judge found that a claim by the State of Florida against an estate must be filed within the eight-month period provided by F.S. § 733.16, F.S.A.
The claim was filed by the Florida Industrial Commission and was held to be barred on motion to expunge filed by the administrator. The filing of this claim was beyond the period of eight months as provided in the non-claim statute. The wording of the Florida Statute, Sec. 733.16, F.S.A., or so much thereof as is pertinent, reads:
'* * * Any such claim or demand not so filed within eight months from the time of the first publication of the notice to creditors shall be void even though the personal representative has recognized such claim or demand by paying a portion thereof or interest thereon or otherwise; * * *.'
So, the question posed narrows itself down to a question of whether or not an agency of the State comes within the statute of non-claim. The appellant cites to us as authority the cases of Heidt v. Caldwell, Fla.1949, 41 So.2d 303; Florida Industrial Comm. v. Felda Lumber Co., 1944, 154 Fla. 507, 18 So.2d 362; and United States v. Embrey, 1940, 145 Fla. 277, 199 So. 41. We shall also discuss United States v. Summerlin, 1939, 140 Fla. 475, 191 So. 842, reversed 310 U.S. 414, 60 S.Ct. 1019, 84 L.Ed. 1283, in a brief review of these cases.
In United States v. Summerlin, supra, the Florida Supreme Court held that a claim filed by the United States Government against the estate of a decedent should be barred as any other claim if not filed within the eight-month period set out in the statute of non-claim. In discussing the statute, the court said:
* * *'[140 Fla. 475, 191 So. 843.]
The Supreme Court of the United States in reversing the Florida court said, in part:
'We hold that the state statute in this instance requiring claims to be filed within eight months cannot deprive the United States of its right to enforce its claim; that the United States still has its right of action against the administrator, even though the probate court is to be regarded as having no jurisdiction to receive a claim after the expiration of the specified period.
'So far as the judgment goes beyond the question of the jurisdiction of the probate court and purports to adjudge that the claim of the United States is void as a claim against the estate of the decedent because of failure to comply with the statute, the judgment is reversed.' [310 U.S. 414, 60 S.Ct. 1021.]
The appellant cites us to the case of United States v. Embrey, 1940, 145 Fla. 277, 199 So. 41, 42, wherein the United States had filed a claim for income tax assessed against the intestate and had filed its claim with the county judge more than eight months after publication of the first notice to creditors. Our Supreme Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Terrell, commented about the Summerlin case and held that:
'It follows that as to all claimants but the United States, if filed after eight months, it would be the duty of the probate judge to declare them void but as to the United States, since it is not bound by laches or State statutes of non claims, it would be his duty to permit them to be filed and considered them along with other claims against the estate. * * *'
The case of Florida Industrial Commission v. Felda Lumber Co., 1944, 154 Fla. 507, 18 So.2d 361, 364, was not decided under the Florida Probate Law and is not, therefore, authority for the instant question. In the Felda case it was a question of whether or not the state agency could collect from a third person the sum of money which was provided by the Workmen's Compensation Law. The court held:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
AHCA v. Estate of Johnson, 98-963.
...145 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962), cert. denied, 153 So.2d 819 (Fla.1963); as well as against state agencies, In Re: Smith's Estate, 132 So.2d 426, (Fla. 2nd DCA 1961). None of the decided cases, however, deal with the rights and remedies regarding state monies advanced which were entirely ......
-
Phillippi Creek Homes, Inc. v. Arnold, 4701
...administration of a decedent's estate by rendering claims unenforceable against the estate, if not timely filed. E. g. In re Smith's Estate, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 426; Davis v. Evans, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 476; Fla.Stat. § 733.16, F.S.A.3 Fillyau v. Laverty, Fla.1850, 3 Fla. 72, 103, ...
-
State v. Moore's Estate
...the State itself should be held to the same rule for the same reason. United States v. Embery, 145 Fla. 277, 199 So. 41. In re Smith's Estate, Fla.App., 132 So.2d 426. We conclude that the District Court of Appeal was correct when it affirmed the ruling of the county judge that the State's ......
-
Moore's Estate, In re, D-213
...United States v. Embrey, 145 Fla. 277, 199 So. 41.6 Heidt v. Caldwell (Fla.1949) 41 So.2d 303.7 F.S. § 734.29, F.S.A.8 In re Smith's Estate, (Fla.App.1961) 132 So.2d 426. ...