All Children's Hospital, Inc.; The Police Athletic League of St. Petersburg; Lutheran Ministries of Florida; Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches, Inc.; The Hospice Foundation; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital; National Wildlife Federation; and American Red Cross, Appellants, v. Augusta H. Owens, Appellee.

All Children's Hosp., Inc. v. Owens, 754 So. 2d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) · Florida District Court of Appeals, Second District · No. No. 2D99-610

Summary

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against charitable residual beneficiaries who sued a caretaker for tortious interference with an expectancy and constructive trust, alleging she improperly obtained inter vivos transfers and a specific devise that reduced the estate residue. The court held that the “bigger piece of pie” claim based on inter vivos transfers had not yet accrued because the estate administration was pending and damages were speculative, and that the “concealed tortious specific devise” claim was barred because the beneficiaries failed to timely object in probate and had an adequate probate remedy, consistent with the finality policy of Fla. Stat. § 733.103(2). The court emphasized that the personal representative or administrator ad litem, not a subset of residual beneficiaries, should pursue recovery of estate assets.

Holdings

  1. A residual beneficiary's claim for tortious interference with an expectancy based on inter vivos transfers that allegedly reduced the estate residue does not accrue, if at all, until the estate administration is completed and the beneficiary has received their distribution, because damage is speculative until that time.
  2. Residual beneficiaries who fail to file a timely objection to a will in probate court cannot pursue a collateral action for constructive trust or damages based on allegations that the specific devisee concealed inter vivos transfers that allegedly procured the devise by undue influence, because such a claim would undermine the statutory policy of finality for devised property and does not constitute an inadequate probate remedy.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether residual beneficiaries of an estate can maintain a claim for tortious interference with an expectancy based on alleged inter vivos transfers that reduced the residuary estate, when the estate administration is still pending and a personal representative or administrator ad litem is pursuing similar claims.
  2. Whether residual beneficiaries can pursue a collateral action for constructive trust or monetary judgment against a specific devisee based on alleged undue influence and concealed inter vivos transfers, when they failed to file a timely objection to the will in probate court.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (13)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (3)

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…