We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Lowndes attorneys obtained a favorable ruling from a probate
court in Lee County, Florida, on behalf of a decedent's estate;
and thereafter, secured an affirmance of the ruling from
Florida's Second District Court of Appeal. The decedent had
provided in her will for certain distributions of personal property
to a beneficiary. With assistance from Lowndes probate attorney,
Julie Frey, the personal representative inventoried and distributed
the personal property accordingly. The beneficiary acknowledged
receipt of her distribution, and filed no objections to the
inventory filed by the personal representatives. Several months
later, however, the beneficiary filed a petition requesting an
inventory and accounting.
Lowndes trial attorney, Richard Dellinger, argued to the probate
court that the beneficiary no longer had standing to request an
inventory and accounting because she had already received her
entire distribution of personal property. Thus, pursuant to §
731.201(23) Florida Statutes, the beneficiary was no
longer an "interested party" to the estate. The probate
court agreed—finding that the beneficiary had not provided
sufficient evidence that she was still an "interested
party"—and denied the petition. An order of discharge
was entered several weeks later, but the beneficiary did not timely
seek an appeal. Instead, the beneficiary filed a motion to set
aside the probate court's order of discharge on the grounds
that it was not served by the probate court after entry. The motion
to set aside was denied, and the beneficiary timely appealed the
denial of the motion to set aside.
Lowndes appellate attorney, Jennifer Dixon, defended the appeal,
obtaining a per curiam affirmance in favor of the estate. Among the
arguments made to the appellate court were 1) that the motion to
set aside orders did not show a colorable claim for relief because
it was neither verified, nor supported by affidavits; 2) that a
lack of a certificate of service on a court order is not
dispositive of whether the order was, in fact, served; and 3) that
orders need not be served on "non-parties," which
includes beneficiaries to an estate who have already received a
complete distribution. Ultimately, the appellate court found that
the probate court did not abuse its discretion in declining to
vacate the order of discharge, and Attorney Frey was able to
proceed in closing the estate.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Family office (FO) goals, structures, leadership and challenges are as complex and distinct as the families themselves. Although each FO approach and structure is unique ...
Trustees are often granted the power to distribute trust property "in the Trustee’s discretion" for a beneficiary’s "general well-being," "best interests," "comfort," or, most commonly, "health, education, maintenance and support."
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
