Winslow v. Deck
| Decision Date | 02 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D16-4312,4D16-4312 |
| Citation | 225 So.3d 276 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Karen WINSLOW, Appellant, v. Mallory N. DECK, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael S. Deck, Appellee. |
Brandan J. Pratt and Jennifer L. Fox of Huth, Pratt & Milhauser, Boca Raton, for appellant.
Rohan Kelley of The Kelley Law Firm, PL, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Appellant, Karen Winslow, appeals the trial court's order dismissing her counterpetition for administration with prejudice for failure to file a pleading satisfying the statutory requirements set forth in section 733.212(3), Florida Statutes (2013), within the applicable statute of limitations. Upon review of the pleadings filed by appellant, we find appellant's petition was not time-barred, and that the court erred by not affording her the opportunity to amend her petition.
The decedent drafted two wills that are at issue in this case. The first will was drafted in January 1991, leaving his entire estate to his two adult children. Several years later, the decedent befriended appellant and they began living together. Thereafter, the decedent drafted a second will in November 2014 containing language purporting to revoke all prior wills and leaving his entire estate to appellant. On May 7, 2015, shortly after the decedent passed away, his daughter Mallory successfully petitioned the court to admit the first will to probate and to appoint her as the personal representative of the estate.
On May 27, 2015, appellant filed the second will. Two days later, she filed four additional documents with the court: 1) an emergency petition to revoke letters of administration; 2) a counterpetition for administration with the second will attached thereto; 3) an objection to Mallory's petition and an objection to her appointment as personal representative; and 4) a declaration that the probate proceeding was adversary. Less than a month later, the court entered an order denying appellant's emergency petition without prejudice and upholding the letters of administration issued for the first will.
More than a year later, Mallory moved to dismiss appellant's counterpetition with prejudice, arguing that appellant lacked standing to contest the first will. In the motion, Mallory asserted that after receiving notice that the decedent's estate would be administered in accordance with the first will, appellant had three months to object to the probate of the first will. Mallory alleged that although appellant immediately filed an emergency petition and counterpetition, appellant failed to file any pleading that specifically requested the first will be revoked. Appellant responded by arguing that the court should deny the motion to dismiss, or alternatively, grant the motion but with leave to amend the counterpetition.
The court ultimately entered a final order dismissing the counterpetition with prejudice, ruling that neither the emergency petition nor the counterpetition satisfied the statutory requirements of section 733.212(3) for failure to adequately request relief. This appeal followed.
"A trial court's order of dismissal is reviewed de novo." Pasquale v. Loving , 82 So.3d 1205, 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). "In determining whether to dismiss a complaint for lack of standing, we must confine our review to the four corners of the complaint, draw all inferences in favor of the pleader, and accept all well-pled allegations in the complaint as true." Gordon v. Kleinman , 120 So.3d 120, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Wheeler v. Powers , 972 So.2d 285, 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) ). "[E]xhibits attached to a complaint ‘are encompassed within the four corners of the complaint and must be considered therewith’ on a motion to dismiss." Chandler v. City Of Greenacres , 140 So.3d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Abele v. Sawyer , 750 So.2d 70, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(b) ().
Pursuant to section 733.212(3), interested parties are barred from requesting the court to revoke the probate of a will if they fail to object to the validity of the will within three months of receiving notice:
Any interested person on whom a copy of the notice of administration is served must object to the validity of the will, the qualifications of the personal representative, the venue, or the jurisdiction of the court by filing a petition or other pleading requesting relief in accordance with the Florida Probate Rules on or before the date that is 3 months after the date of service of a copy of the notice of administration on the objecting person, or those objections are forever barred.
§ 733.212(3), Fla. Stat. (2013). Section 733.208, Florida Statutes (2002), provides that after discovering a later will, "any interested person may petition to revoke the probate of the earlier will or to probate the later will or codicil." An "interested person" is "any person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the particular proceeding involved." § 731.201(23), Fla. Stat. (2013).
Florida Probate Rule 5.020(a) provides that Moreover, after an interested person petitions the court to probate a later will or requests to revoke an earlier will, the proceedings are declared adversarial and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure govern the proceedings. See Fla. Prob. R. 5.025(d)(2).
As a general rule, trial courts should not prevent a petitioner from challenging a will because of a technical defect in the petitioner's pleading without allowing for a reasonable opportunity to amend. See Pasquale , 82 So.3d at 1208 ; see also Feather v. Sanko's Estate , 390 So.2d 746, 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (). The law is clear that trial courts must liberally construe court rules to allow parties to freely amend their pleadings in the interests of justice:
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), which governs amendments to pleadings, "reflect[s] a clear policy that, absent exceptional circumstances, requests for leave to amend pleadings should be granted." Thompson v. Jared Kane Co. , 872 So.2d 356, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). "A trial court's refusal to allow amendment ... generally constitutes an abuse of discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial