Richard and Chernecky v. Richard
193 So. 3d 964
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent died May 9, 2012; Karen (spouse) and Joel (son) jointly petitioned for testate administration and sought appointment as co-personal representatives.
- Karen and Joel signed oaths May 21; they published the first notice to creditors on June 13, 2012 (each signing as “personal representative”).
- The court entered an order appointing them co-personal representatives and signed letters on June 14, 2012 (one day after the first publication). A second statutory notice was published June 20.
- Karen filed a creditor’s claim on September 21, 2012 (more than three months after the June 13 publication) asserting rights under a prenuptial agreement.
- Joel and Kim moved to strike Karen’s claim as untimely; Karen sought summary judgment that the June 13 notice was null because it preceded appointment and argued relation-back under section 733.601 did not apply to duties. Trial court ruled the June 13 notice was void and declared Karen’s claim timely; the appellate court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Karen's Argument | Joel/Kim's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pre-appointment publication of notice to creditors is validated by relation-back (§733.601) | The statute distinguishes “powers” (which relate back) from “duties” (which do not); publishing is a duty and thus the June 13 notice is void | Relation-back applies to acts by a person later appointed that are beneficial to the estate, including publication; the act should be validated | Relation-back under §733.601 validates the June 13 publication; the appointment relates back and the premature publication is not a nullity |
| Whether publishing notice is a “duty” that cannot relate back | Publishing is a statutory duty, so it cannot be treated as a power that relates back | Publishing is both a duty and an act/power necessary to carry out estate administration; relation-back covers acts beneficial to the estate | Publication is an act that may be validated by relation-back; distinguishing duties from powers in the statute does not bar validation |
| Whether appellate court should sustain trial court’s summary judgment and declaration that Karen’s claim was timely | The invalid first notice rendered the estate without effective publication and Karen’s claim was timely | The first publication was validated by relation-back, so statutory filing deadlines run from that publication | Trial court erred; relation-back validation requires reconsideration of timeliness and whether Karen was a reasonably ascertainable creditor |
| Whether adopting Karen’s construction would create untenable uncertainty for personal representatives | N/A | Adopting the duty/power dichotomy would create uncertainty about which pre-appointment acts relate back | Court declined Karen’s dichotomy to avoid uncertainty and to effectuate estate administration |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1954) (early Florida recognition of relation-back doctrine validating pre-appointment acts)
- Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2004) (confirmed vitality of relation-back principles)
- Univ. of Miami v. Wilson, 948 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (applied relation-back to validate pre-appointment pre-suit notice)
- Talan v. Murphy, 443 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1984) (relation-back precedent)
- Gilson v. Foltz, 431 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (illustrates why imposing pre-appointment duties is inappropriate)
- Tyler v. Huggins, 175 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (prior law requiring publication after letters issued; distinguished)
- In re Sale's Estate, 227 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1969) (curator authority context; distinguished)
- Estate of Tanner, 288 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (curator authority; distinguished)