In re Estate of Eisenberg

466 So. 2d 1221, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 907, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13354
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 10, 1985
DocketNo. 85-46
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 466 So. 2d 1221 (In re Estate of Eisenberg) 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
In re Estate of Eisenberg, 466 So. 2d 1221, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 907, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13354 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

HURLEY, Judge.

The probate court entered an order which it later construed to conflict with the Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure. The resulting conflict constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and, therefore, we grant the instant petition for writ of certiorari.

Barbara Porter, a beneficiary of the estate of Henry Eisenberg, filed a petition in the probate court for an interim accounting. The court granted her request, indicating that “Barbara R. Porter shall have the statutory time period to make any objections to said accounting, said time period to commence on the date the executed intermediate accounting is filed with the Clerk of this Court.” Later, the court applied this provision to preclude “late objections” even though Mrs. Porter claimed not to have received a notice of the filing nor an executed copy of the interim accounting.1 In our view, the court’s interpretation of its prior order was doubly wrong. Not only did it enforce an erroneous provision of the original order, but it also vitiated an important notice requirement in rule 5.345(d), Fla.R.P. & G.P.

Rule 5.345(d), Fla.R.P. & G.P.,2 states: The personal representative shall serve notice of the filing and a copy of the interim accounting on all interested persons. The notice shall state that it is an application for the approval of the accounting and shall notify the person served that any objection to the accounting, or any item thereof, stating the basis for the objection, must be filed in writing within 30 days after service of notice or the interim accounting shall be approved as filed.

By focusing on the date of filing with the Clerk, the probate court effectively eliminated the rule’s notice requirement. The workings of the rule, however, demonstrate that notice to interested persons is essential. The rule specifies that the date of service of notice — not the date of filing — is the starting point for the 30-day objection period. Thus, we hold that the probate court departed from the essential requirements of law when it altered a plain and unambiguous requirement of the Florida Rules of Probate & Guardianship Procedure. Furthermore, the potential for irremediable harm resulting from an improper distribution of assets justifies immediate certiorari relief.3

Accordingly, we grant the writ and instruct the probate court to require full compliance with rule 5.345, Fla.R.P. & G.P., thus allowing the petitioner to file objections to the interim accounting within 30 days from the date of service of notice upon her.

WRIT ISSUED.

GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Molnar v. Maltz
786 So. 2d 1276 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Estate of Schwartz v. HBA MANAGEMENT
673 So. 2d 116 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Pevsner v. Frederick
656 So. 2d 262 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
466 So. 2d 1221, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 907, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-eisenberg-fladistctapp-1985.