Carol Ann Jones v. Edward I. Goden, etc., 176 So. 3d 242

Decedent Harry Jones died Feb. 2007; probate opened Apr. 2007 and notice to creditors was published in June 2007; Harry’s ex-wife Katherine (in guardianship) was not served with a copy of the notice.
Katherine’s guardian filed a claim in Jan. 2009 (within two years of death); Katherine later died and Edward Golden became curator and defended the claim’s timeliness.
Personal representative Carol Jones moved to strike the claim as untimely under Fla. Stat. §§ 733.702 and 733.710, relying on First and Second DCA precedents.
The probate court struck the claim; the Fourth DCA reversed in Golden, holding that failure to serve a known/ascertainable creditor prevents the §733.702(1) time from running and the claim is governed by the two‑year repose in §733.710.
The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve a conflict among districts and ultimately approved the Fourth DCA’s reasoning, disapproving Morgenthau and Lubee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jones)	Defendant's Argument (Golden)	Held
Whether a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with the notice to creditors must file within 3 months after first publication (or seek extension), or may file within 2 years of death	Morgenthau/Lubee position: even known/ascertainable creditors not served must file within the 3‑month publication window (or seek a §733.702(3) extension within 2 years)	If a known/ascertainable creditor is never served, the §733.702(1) period never begins to run; such creditor’s claim is timely if filed within the two‑year repose of §733.710	Held for Golden: where a known/ascertainable creditor is not served, §733.702(1) does not begin to run; the creditor’s claim is timely if filed within two years of death (§733.710)

Tulsa Prof. Collection Servs. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988) (Due Process requires actual notice to known or reasonably ascertainable creditors when legal proceedings will bar claims)
Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983) (actual notice by mail or equivalent is required to satisfy due process in property‑affecting proceedings)
May v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 771 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2000) (distinguishing §733.702 as limitations statute and §733.710 as jurisdictional nonclaim statute)
In re Estate of Puzzo, 637 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (due process analysis and holding that §733.702(1) does not bar claims of known creditors who were never served)
Golden v. Jones, 126 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (Fourth DCA decision approving the view adopted by this Court)
Morgenthau v. Andzel, 26 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (contrary holding that unpaid known creditors not served must file within three months after publication)
Lubee v. Adams, 77 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (adopting Morgenthau’s rule)