Florida Bar

537 So. 2d 500, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 601, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 1463, 1988 WL 143178
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided September 29, 1988·No. No. 72321·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

REVISED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The Probate and Guardianship Rules Committee of The Florida Bar and the Probate and Guardianship Rules Committee of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section, acting as a joint committee, have submitted their quadrennial petition for amendments to the Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure. According to the petition, amendments were deemed necessary because of changes in statutory procedures and causes of action, changes brought about by court decisions, and suggestions which were submitted by interested members of the Bar and members of the judiciary.

The committee also points out that pursuant to this Court’s direction in The Florida Bar re Emergency Amendments to Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure, 460 So.2d 906 (Fla.1984), it has endeavored to identify those portions of the Florida Probate Code which contain procedural provisions and to include within the proposed amendments rules incorporating those procedures. Because of its understanding that the legislature proposes a massive revision of the Florida guardianship law, the committee did not undertake the same task except in one instance with respect to the guardianship rules.

The committee suggests that the two most significant changes in its proposed amendments are found in rule 5.346 on the subject of fiduciary accounting and rule 5.360 concerning elective share and preexisting dower.

All of the proposed amendments were unanimously approved by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and the Executive Council of the Real Property Section of The Florida Bar. Notice of the proposed amendments has been published in The Florida Bar News. No objections have been filed with this Court.

At oral argument, counsel advised that the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 1340, 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988), appeared to have necessitated additional amendments to the rules as they relate to notice to creditors. Therefore, at this Court’s request, the committee subsequently submitted a proposed amendment to rule 5.240 and the addition of rule 5.495 to accommodate the requirements of Pope.

The proposed amendments which are attached hereto are hereby approved1 and shall become effective on January 1, 1989. The committee notes are included for explanation and guidance only and are not adopted as an official part of the rules.

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

FLORIDA PROBATE RULES

PART I—GENERAL

RULE 5.010. SCOPE

These rules govern the procedure in all probate and guardianship proceedings and shall be known as the Florida Probate Rules and may be cited as FPR. Part I of these rules applies to both probate and guardianship procedure. Part II applies to probate alone and Part III to guardianship alone. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply only as provided herein.

[501] Committee Notes

In the opinion reported at 460 So.2d 906, the Florida Supreme Court directed the Probate and Guardianship Rules Committee to study the statutes and attempt to identify those portions of the Florida Probate Code, the Florida Guardianship Law, and other statutes that contained procedural provisions. When those procedural provisions were identified, the committee was charged to promulgate rules incorporating those procedures.

The committee has reviewed the statutes and has found a substantial measure of procedure that was contained only in the statutes for which there were no corresponding rules. The committee also determined that much of the procedure in the statutes already had a rule counterpart.

New rules added, or prior rules amended, in 1988 to add procedural matters previously found only in the statutes are Rules 5.050, 5.122, 5.171, 5.180, 5.201, 5.235, 5.270, 5.275, 5.340, 5.355, 5.360, 5.385, 5.386, 5.400, 5.440, 5.475, 5.490, and 5.510. With only one exception (see Rule 5.050), the only portion of the statutes that has been reviewed in detail, and for which rules have been created, is the Florida Probate Code. Other portions of the statutes mentioned in the opinion cited above remain for the next cycle of this committee to review.

As the committee wrote rules to transfer the statutory procedure into these rules, an attempt was made to write the rule without changing the meaning of the statute. It was not possible or advisable to use the exact wording of the statute in some instances, and in those instances the committee rewrote the statutory language in the format used in the rules generally. Even under those circumstances, the committee attempted to transfer the entire procedural portion of the statute without changing its meaning. Where it was specifically intended in a few instances to add to existing statutory procedure, that fact is noted in the relevant committee note. The committee felt strongly that it would be detrimental to the orderly process of estate probate and related procedures if a rule specified a different procedure than was specified in the related statute, even though the statute must, under the Florida Constitution, yield to the rule when there is a conflict.

The committee, through the proper channels in The Florida Bar (initially, the Probate Law Committee of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section), intends to ask the legislature to repeal those portions of the statutes that are procedural when there are similar rules already in place, or when similar new rules are added by this opinion. It is the opinion of the committee that continuing to maintain procedure in the statutes when there is a rule specifying that procedure is detrimental to the orderly process of the court and the public that it serves, especially when, over time, the statute and the rule may diverge.

Although the Supreme Court has adopted these recommended rules, it has not specifically determined that all of the provisions of the statutes that were procedural have now been adopted as a rule. This is a continuing project for the committee and although these new rules and changes represent a substantial transition of procedure into the rules, the committee does not suggest that the transition is complete. The court is not precluded from examining any particular statute or rule in the context of a particular actual dispute.

Rule History

1975 Revision: These rules shall govern the procedures to be followed in all matters pending on or commenced after January 1, 1976, including procedures for the enforcement of substantive rights that have vested before that date. See F.S. 731.011.

1977 Revision: The changes in these rules shall take effect on July 1, 1977.

1988 Revision: Committee notes expanded. Citation form changes in rule and committee notes. .

Rule References

FPR 5.025 Adversary proceedings.

FPR 5.040(a)(3)(C) Notice.

FPR 5.050 Transfer of proceedings.

FPR 5.070 Subpoena.

FPR 5.080 Discovery.

FPR 5.230(e) Commission to prove will. RULE 5.015. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

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

Florida Bar, 537 So. 2d 500, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 601, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 1463, 1988 WL 143178 (Fla. 1988).

537 So. 2d 500 (Florida Bar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State of Louisiana v. Benjamin Guillory
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2019
State v. Garnett
266 So. 3d 330 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2019)
State of Louisiana v. Julius Jamal Garnett
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2019
US TRUST CO. OF FLORIDA SAV. v. Haig
694 So. 2d 769 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
U.S. Trust Co. of Florida Savings Bank v. Haig
694 So. 2d 769 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
American & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Dimson
645 So. 2d 45 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
In Re Estate of Gleason
631 So. 2d 321 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Thames v. Jackson
598 So. 2d 121 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Hill v. HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc.
582 So. 2d 701 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
In Re Hill
582 So. 2d 701 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)