Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialaffidavit
tortdamagesattorneystatutetrialaffidavitprobateprosecutordefense attorney

Related Cases

In re Elizabeth Beck Hoisington Living Trust, Not Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2017 WL 4750644
View Case »
Edmundson v. Morton, 332 N.C. 276, 420 S.E.2d 106
View Case »
Sturm v. Routh, 373 S.W.2d 922
View Case »
Countrywood Estates, Inc. v. Donnelly, 42 N.J.Super. 456, 127 A.2d 176
View Case »
Tuttle v. Burrows, 852 P.2d 1314
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Soriano v. Estate of Manes, 177 So.3d 677, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2350

Facts

Luis F. Manes died on November 3, 2013, and his former wife, Carmen Manes, was appointed as the personal representative of his estate. A notice to creditors was published shortly after his death. Four months later, Yvette Soriano filed a statement of claim against the estate, alleging an unsecured claim based on a battery incident involving the decedent. She claimed to be a reasonably ascertainable creditor entitled to personal notice, but the personal representative asserted that a diligent search revealed no knowledge of Soriano or her claim.

Four months later, on March 21, 2014, Ms. Soriano filed a statement of claim against the estate, alleging she had an unsecured claim 'based upon an imminent private tort action against [the Decedent] stemming from a criminal charge he incurred on May 28, 2013 in Monroe County, Florida.'

Issue

Was Yvette Soriano a 'reasonably ascertainable creditor' entitled to personal service of notice to creditors?

The issue in this case is whether Soriano was a 'reasonably ascertainable creditor,' such that she was entitled to personal service of the notice to creditors.

Rule

Under Florida law, a claim against a decedent's estate must be filed within a specified time frame, and only reasonably ascertainable creditors are entitled to personal notice.

Florida law provides that: no claim or demand against the decedent's estate that arose before the death of the decedent … even if the claims are unmatured, contingent, or unliquidated … and no claim for damages, including, but not limited to, an action founded on fraud or another wrongful act or omission of the decedent, is binding on the estate, on the personal representative, or on any beneficiary unless filed in the probate proceeding on or before the later of the date that is 3 months after the time of the first publication of the notice to creditors or, as to any creditor required to be served with a copy of the notice to creditors, 30 days after the date of service on the creditor….

Analysis

The court analyzed the affidavits presented by both parties and concluded that Soriano did not establish herself as a reasonably ascertainable creditor. The evidence showed that the personal representative conducted a diligent search and found no indication of Soriano's claim. The court emphasized that mere conjectural claims do not warrant personal notice.

Even accepting as true the averments in the affidavits of Ms. Soriano' counsel, the prosecutor, and Decedent's criminal defense attorney (together with the uncontested averments in Ms. Manes' affidavit), these averments fail to establish that Ms. Soriano was a reasonably ascertainable creditor.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that Soriano was not a reasonably ascertainable creditor and her claim was therefore untimely.

The trial court properly denied Ms. Soriano's petition because, as a mere conjectural creditor, she was not entitled to personal service of the notice to creditors, her petition was untimely, and her asserted claim was barred by section 733.702(1), Florida Statutes.

Who won?

Carmen Manes, as the personal representative of the estate, prevailed because the court found that Soriano was not entitled to personal notice and her claim was untimely.

The trial court properly denied Ms. Soriano's petition because, as a mere conjectural creditor, she was not entitled to personal service of the notice to creditors.

You must be