ZAYAS-HOOD v. Jusino

44 So. 3d 626, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11700, 2010 WL 3120217
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 10, 2010
Docket1D10-0249
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 44 So. 3d 626 (ZAYAS-HOOD v. Jusino) 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
ZAYAS-HOOD v. Jusino, 44 So. 3d 626, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11700, 2010 WL 3120217 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Maria A. Zayas-Hood and Maria C. Graves, appeal an order suspending a prior order that compelled payment of their claim against the estate of Appel-lees’ mother and granting Appellees’ motion for an extension of time to file an objection to the claim. We agree with Appellants that the trial court lacked authority to relieve Appellees from the order compelling payment of the claim. Section 733.705(2), Florida Statutes, providing that a court may extend the time for filing or serving an objection to a claim against an estate, does not address a situation where an order has been entered compelling payment of a claim. We also agree with Appellants that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 was not available to relieve Appellees from the order compelling payment. Florida Probate Rule 5.010 provides that “[t]he Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply only as provided herein.” Neither rule 5.490, the probate rule addressing the form and manner of presenting claims against an estate, nor rule 5.496, the probate rule addressing the form and manner of objecting to claims, makes any mention of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, while rule 5.025 provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure apply in adversarial probate proceedings, the proceeding at issue was not a “specific adversary proceeding” pursuant to rule 5.025(a). Nor had it been declared an adversary proceeding pursuant to rule 5.025(b) or (c) when the order compelling payment was entered.

*627 Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND.

DAVIS, PADOVANO, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Estate of Arroyo v. Infinity Indemnity Insurance Co.
211 So. 3d 240 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Reyes v. Infinity Indemnity Insurance Co.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 So. 3d 626, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11700, 2010 WL 3120217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zayas-hood-v-jusino-fladistctapp-2010.