Amendments to Florida Probate Rules

683 So. 2d 78, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 436, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 1713, 1996 WL 559880
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 3, 1996
Docket87666
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 683 So. 2d 78 (Amendments to Florida Probate Rules) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amendments to Florida Probate Rules, 683 So. 2d 78, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 436, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 1713, 1996 WL 559880 (Fla. 1996).

Opinion

683 So.2d 78 (1996)

AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA PROBATE RULES.

No. 87666.

Supreme Court of Florida.

October 3, 1996.

John W. Frost, III, President, Bartow; Edward R. Blumberg, President-elect, Miami; and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Tallahassee, on behalf of The Florida Bar; and Wilson Smith, Chair, Florida Probate Rules Committee, Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.

Rohan Kelley, John G. Grimsley and John Arthur Jones, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Interveners.

Charles E. Ray of Messer and Ray, Port St. Lucie, Florida; and Stephen Krosschell, Holiday, Interested Parties.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar Probate Rules Committee has submitted its quadrennial report of proposed changes to the Florida Probate Rules. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution.

The rules committee proposes several substantive amendments to the rules, including changes to conform to the Rules of Civil Procedure and to conform to statutory changes. Four proposed rule changes are amendments of the committee notes and not the body of the rule. The other recommended changes are intended to simplify and clarify the rules.

The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and the Executive Council of the Real Property, Probate, and Trust Law Section of the Bar approved the proposed changes. The committee's report and a summary of the proposed amendments were published

The Florida Bar News. The text of the proposed amendments were placed on the Court's Internet site.

Two comments dealing with rules 5.100 and 5.560 were received. Stephen Krosschell, a member of the Appellate Rules Committee, points out that proposed Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2) governs appeals in probate matters and is intended to supersede Florida Probate Rule 5.100.[1]See In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, No. 87,134 (currently pending before Court). He further notes that proposed rule 9.110(a)(2) is different from rule 5.100 and appears to preclude appeals that rule 5.100 permits. In order to remove a possible trap to the practitioner who looks to rule 5.100 and is unaware of rule 9.110(a)(2), Krosschell urges us to delete all but the last sentence of rule 5.100 and to amend it to provide that the appeals of probate and guardianship orders are governed by the appellate rules. We agree and have so amended rule 5.100, as indicated in the appendix to this opinion.

The second comment regards the proposed amendment of rule 5.560, which would eliminate the requirement that the social security or tax identification number of a proposed guardian be included in a petition for appointment of guardian of an incapacitated person. Probate Rules Committee member Charles E. Ray has voiced his opposition to this amendment. Ray states that the guardian's social security number is a tool that aids the courts in administering these guardianships and in keeping track of the guardians. Ray urges the Court to delay implementation of the rule 5.560 changes until the rules include a requirement that the application for appointment as guardian include the guardian's social security number. We agree. Accordingly, we decline to implement that part of the proposed change to rule 5.560 at this time. *79 Rohan Kelley, John G. Grimsley, and John Arthur Jones also filed a motion to intervene and propose changes to rules 5.180 and 5.400. This Court granted the motion and the interveners' proposed amendments were published in the May 15, 1996, issue of The Florida Bar News. No comments dealing with the intervenors' proposed amendments were filed. The intervenors' proposed amendments are intended to conform to a 1995 amendment of section 733.6171, Florida Statutes, regarding disclosure of attorney fees. See ch. 95-401, ž 2, at 3278-81, Laws of Fla. The rules committee had completed its committee work by the July 1, 1995, effective date of the statutory amendment and thus did not address this statutory change. At oral argument, Committee Chair Wilson Smith recommended adopting the intervenors' proposals. Accordingly, rules 5.180 and 5.400 are amended to include the specific fee waiver disclosure requirements found in section 733.6171(9), Florida Statutes (1995).

After reviewing the report of the rules committee, the intervenors' proposals, and the comments filed by interested parties, we approve the appended amendments to the Florida Probate Rules. The amendments reflect the substantive changes recommended by the rules committee and the intervenors. However, we decline to delete the rule 5.560 requirement that the guardian's social security number be included on a petition for appointment of guardian until the committee addresses the concerns presented to this Court. We also amend rule 5.100 to ensure that it conforms with the appellate rules. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by strike-through type. The committee notes are offered for explanation and guidance only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules. The amendments shall become effective January 1, 1997.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

APPENDIX

RULE 5.040. NOTICE

(a) Formal Notice.

(1) When formal notice is given, a copy of the pleading or motion shall be served on interested persons, together with a notice requiring the person served to serve written defenses on the person giving notice within 20 days after service of the notice, exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of the written defenses with the clerk of the court either before service or immediately thereafter, and notifying the person served that failure to serve written defenses as required may result in a judgment or order for the relief demanded in the pleading or motion, without further notice.

(2) After service of formal notice, informal notice of any hearing on the pleading or motion shall be served on interested persons, provided that if no written defense is served within 20 days after service of formal notice on an interested person, the pleading or motion may be considered ex parte as to that person, unless the court orders otherwise.

(3) Formal notice shall be served:

(A) by any commercial delivery service requiring a signed receipt approved by the chief judge of the judicial circuit in which the proceeding is pending or by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt as follows:

(i) on an interested person represented by an attorney by mailing or delivering a copy to the attorney; or

(ii) on an interested person who has filed a demand for notice by mailing or delivering a copy to the post office address given in the demand for notice; or

(iii) on an individual, other than an incapacitated person, by mailing or delivering a copy to the individual's usual place of abode or to the place where the individual regularly conducts business; or

(iv) on an incapacitated person by mailing or delivering a copy to the person's usual place of abode and to the person's legal *80 guardian, if any, at the guardian's usual place of abode or regular place of business; or, if there is no legal guardian, by mailing or delivering a copy to the incapacitated person at the person's usual place of abode and to the person, if any, having care or custody of the incapacitated person at the usual place of abode or regular place of business of such custodian; or

(v) on a corporation by mailing

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Delgado v. Estate of Garriga
870 So. 2d 912 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
In Re Estate of Nolan
712 So. 2d 421 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Walters v. Edwards
700 So. 2d 434 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
In Re Estate of Walters
700 So. 2d 434 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
683 So. 2d 78, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 436, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 1713, 1996 WL 559880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendments-to-florida-probate-rules-fla-1996.