In Re Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules

584 So. 2d 964, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 557, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 1335, 1991 WL 169366
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedAugust 22, 1991
Docket77086
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 584 So. 2d 964 (In Re Amendments to the 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
In Re Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules, 584 So. 2d 964, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 557, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 1335, 1991 WL 169366 (Fla. 1991).

Opinion

584 So.2d 964 (1991)

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA PROBATE RULES.

No. 77086.

Supreme Court of Florida.

August 22, 1991.

H. Laurence Cooper, Jr., Co-Chair, West Palm Beach, and Samuel S. Smith, Co-Chair, Miami, Fla. Probate Rules Committee of The Florida Bar, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

David G. Shields, Foster & Kelly, Orlando, Anthony C. Musto, Chairman, Florida Rules of Judicial Admin. Committee, Musto, Zaremba and Rosenthal, Coral Gables, and Thomas E. Penick, Jr., Probate Administrator, Circuit Court Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Clearwater, George J. Felos, of Felos & Felos, Dunedin, responding.

PER CURIAM.

The Probate Rules Committee of The Florida Bar filed a petition and a supplemental petition submitting proposed amendments to the Florida Probate Rules. The petitions were filed upon this Court's request for the committee to proceed outside of its four-year cycle to redraft and rewrite the Florida Probate Rules in compliance with numerous legislative changes to the Florida Guardianship Law. The supplemental petition also contains a proposed new rule in response to this Court's request in In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1990), with respect to expedited judicial intervention concerning medical treatment procedures.

The committee reports that the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar voted unanimously in favor of the proposed amendments. The amendments were advertised in The Florida Bar News, and persons were invited to file comments or objections with the Court within a prescribed time. Thereafter, the Court heard oral argument on the proposed amendments.

The Court hereby adopts the proposed amendments in their entirety with the following exceptions:

1. Rule 5.040(b) has been amended to more clearly define informal notice.

2. The requirement contained in proposed rule 5.590 that the application for appointment as guardian be filed with the petition to determine incompetency has been eliminated.

3. The term "incapacitated person" in proposed rule 5.635 has been changed to "ward."

4. The title of proposed rule 5.900 has been changed to read "Expedited Judicial Intervention Concerning Medical Treatment Procedures."

5. Rule 5.900(a) has been reworded to coincide with the title of the rule and to make clear that a petition may be brought by any "interested" adult person.

6. A new provision has been added to proposed rule 5.900(c) which requires that the patient's adult children be notified of the proceeding.

7. The terminology of other portions of proposed rule 5.900 has been slightly reworded to more fully reflect the provisions of In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1990).

The proposed amendments which are attached hereto shall become effective on October 1, 1991. 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.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

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

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 *965 these rules applies to both probate and guardianship procedure all proceedings. Part II applies to probate alone, and Part III applies to guardianship alone, and Part IV applies to expedited judicial intervention concerning medical treatment procedures. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply only as provided herein.

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, 5.355, 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 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 section 731.011, Florida Statutes.

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

*966 1988 Revision: Committee notes expanded. Citation form changes in rule and committee notes.

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

Related

State v. Gregory
137 So. 3d 663 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
Morgenthau v. Estate of Andzel
26 So. 3d 628 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson
952 So. 2d 498 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules
848 So. 2d 1069 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
In Re Estate of Danese
641 So. 2d 423 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
MIDLAND NAT. BANK AND TRUST v. Comerica Trust Co.
616 So. 2d 1081 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
In re Amendments to the Florida Probate Rules
607 So. 2d 1306 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Thames v. Jackson
598 So. 2d 121 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
584 So. 2d 964, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 557, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 1335, 1991 WL 169366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-probate-rules-fla-1991.