KAREN WINSLOW v. MALLORY N. DECK
225 So. 3d 276
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent executed a 1991 will leaving his estate to his two adult children and a 2014 will leaving his estate to appellant Karen Winslow.
- Daughter Mallory successfully petitioned to probate the 1991 will and was appointed personal representative on May 7, 2015.
- Winslow filed the 2014 will on May 27, 2015 and filed an emergency petition, a counterpetition to admit the 2014 will (seeking revocation of probate of the 1991 will), objections to Mallory’s petition/appointment, and a declaration that the probate was adversarial.
- The trial court denied the emergency petition without prejudice and later, more than a year after the counterpetition, dismissed Winslow’s counterpetition with prejudice for failing to plead a statutory request for relief under §733.212(3) within three months of notice.
- Winslow appealed, arguing her filings were sufficient (or alternatively she should have been given leave to amend) and that her original counterpetition was timely and should relate back to that filing date.
Issues
| Issue | Winslow's Argument | Deck's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Winslow’s filings satisfied the §733.212(3) three‑month requirement to object to probate | Her emergency petition and counterpetition, read with attached 2014 will, sufficiently sought revocation/admission and thus met the statutory requirement | Winslow failed to file a pleading that properly requested relief to revoke probate within three months, so objections are time‑barred | Court held the pleadings were sufficient under rules abolishing technical forms; Winslow filed within three months and was not time‑barred |
| Whether the trial court should have allowed leave to amend the counterpetition | If pleadings were deficient, Winslow requested leave to amend to state the proper relief; amendment would relate back to original timely filing | Argued pleadings were insufficient and dismissal with prejudice was appropriate | Court ruled dismissal with prejudice was erroneous; trial court must grant leave to amend absent abuse, prejudice, or futility |
| Whether Winslow was an "interested person" entitled to challenge the earlier will | Winslow, as sole beneficiary under the 2014 will, was an interested person and could petition to revoke the earlier will | Implied challenge to standing if she failed to plead correctly within the statutory window | Court treated Winslow as an interested person and concluded amendment would not be futile |
| Effect of Florida Probate/Civil Rules on pleading defects | Fla. Prob. R. 5.020 abolishes technical forms; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190 favors permitting amendments | Strict statutory compliance required for objections within three months | Court applied liberal construction of rules, requiring leave to amend rather than dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Pasquale v. Loving, 82 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (standard for dismissals and amendment practice in probate challenges)
- Feather v. Sanko’s Estate, 390 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (pleading defects should be remedied by allowing amendment rather than defaulting claim)
- Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Beekman, 174 So. 3d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (rule that leave to amend should be allowed absent abuse, prejudice, or futility)
- Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (amendment policy under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190)