May v. Illinois National Insurance Co.

No. 98-2580 (11th Cir. Mar. 28, 2001) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · September 29, 1999 · No. No. 98-2580

Summary

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Illinois National Insurance Company after applying the Florida Supreme Court’s answers to certified questions concerning Florida probate claim-filing deadlines. The court held that the claim was barred under the applicable limitation period and denied the appellant’s request to file a supplemental brief because no facts supported an extension based on fraud, estoppel, or insufficient notice.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Anderson, Chief Judge; Roney, Circuit Judge; Julian Abele Cook, Jr., District Judge, sitting by designation
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
September 29, 1999
Docket number
No. 98-2580
Procedural posture
Appeal from summary judgment entered for Illinois National Insurance Company in a dispute concerning whether a claim against an estate was timely presented under Florida probate law.
Standard of review
De novo review of summary judgment; the court applied the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida probate law.
Precedential value
Published Eleventh Circuit opinion
Parties
David R. May, as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Oscar T. Bradley, deceased v. Illinois National Insurance Company
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

creditor claimsprobate procedurestatutory interpretationappellate procedureinsurance

Practice areas

probateinsuranceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Florida Supreme Court's answers concerning sections 733.702 and 733.710 required affirmance of summary judgment against the estate's claim.
  2. Whether the appellant should be permitted to file a supplemental brief based on the possibility of seeking an extension of the section 733.702 limitation period.

Holdings

  1. The claim against the estate was barred because the filings satisfied Florida's section 733.710 nonclaim period but did not satisfy the limitation period in section 733.702(1), and no legally supported extension had been sought or established.
  2. Leave to file a supplemental brief was denied because no extension request had been made and the record contained no facts supporting an extension based on fraud, estoppel, or insufficient notice.

Key quotations

Thus the Supreme Court's decision effectively bars the claim made against the estate.
Under the Florida Supreme Court's opinion, however, an extension could be granted only on facts showing "fraud, estoppel or insufficient notice."
Accordingly, the summary judgment for Illinois National Insurance Company, based on the Florida Supreme Court's analysis, is AFFIRMED.

Factual background

The Estate of Oscar T. Bradley was subject to a claim asserted by or through the administrator ad litem. A petition for appointment of an administrator ad litem and a counter-petition for administration were filed in the probate proceeding, but the Florida Supreme Court determined that those filings did not satisfy the limitation period in section 733.702(1), although they did satisfy the nonclaim period in section 733.710. No request for an extension based on fraud, estoppel, or insufficient notice had been made, and the record contained no facts supporting such an extension.

Procedural history

The Eleventh Circuit previously certified questions concerning Florida Statutes sections 733.702 and 733.710 to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court answered that section 733.702(3) is a waivable or extendable statute of limitations, section 733.710 is a jurisdictional statute of nonclaim, and the petitions filed in the probate proceeding satisfied section 733.710 but not section 733.702(1). On return of the certified answers, the Eleventh Circuit denied the appellant's request to file a supplemental brief and affirmed the district court's summary judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…