Estate of Lefkowitz v. Olsten Kimberly Qualitycare

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Estate of Lefkowitz v. Olsten Kimberly Qualitycare

679 So. 2d 63, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9286, 1996 WL 497015

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 1996

DocketNo. 96-2271

StatusPublished

This text of 679 So. 2d 63 (Estate of Lefkowitz v. Olsten Kimberly Qualitycare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Lefkowitz v. Olsten Kimberly Qualitycare, 679 So. 2d 63, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9286, 1996 WL 497015 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

KLEIN, Judge.

The trial court granted a creditor’s motion to extend the time for filing a statement of claim in an estate, and the estate is attempting to appeal that order. The creditor has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not appealable.

In probate all orders “determining rights of any party in any particular proceeding in the administration of the estate” are appeal-able. Fla. Prob. R. 5.100. Whether this order is appealable appears to be a question of first impression.

In In re Estate of Bierman, 587 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), a case in which we observed that the rule is not specific and there is little precedent to guide us, we dismissed an appeal. The order in Bierman was not an extension to file a claim; howev[64]*64er, in Bierman we cited as authority for dismissal Tyler v. Huggins, 175 So.2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), describing the order in Tyler as one “permitting a claim to be filed against an estate where the personal representative could still object thereto.” Bier-man at 1166. That is precisely what this order does.

We conclude that an order extending the time for filing a creditor’s claim does not have sufficient finality, with regard to the rights of any party, to be appealable. The estate can appeal when it is required to pay the claim. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

KLEIN, Judge.

The trial court granted a creditor’s motion to extend the time for filing a statement of claim in an estate, and the estate is attempting to appeal that order. The creditor has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not appealable.

In probate all orders “determining rights of any party in any particular proceeding in the administration of the estate” are appeal-able. Fla. Prob. R. 5.100. Whether this order is appealable appears to be a question of first impression.

In In re Estate of Bierman, 587 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), a case in which we observed that the rule is not specific and there is little precedent to guide us, we dismissed an appeal. The order in Bierman was not an extension to file a claim; howev[64]*64er, in Bierman we cited as authority for dismissal Tyler v. Huggins, 175 So.2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), describing the order in Tyler as one “permitting a claim to be filed against an estate where the personal representative could still object thereto.” Bier-man at 1166. That is precisely what this order does.

We conclude that an order extending the time for filing a creditor’s claim does not have sufficient finality, with regard to the rights of any party, to be appealable. The estate can appeal when it is required to pay the claim. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 So. 2d 63, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9286, 1996 WL 497015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-lefkowitz-v-olsten-kimberly-qualitycare-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack