Case Name: Janet W. SPOHR, Petitioner, v. John C. BERRYMAN, etc., et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-09-26
Citations: 589 So. 2d 225
Docket Number: No. 76526
Parties: Janet W. SPOHR, Petitioner, v. John C. BERRYMAN, etc., et al., Respondents.
Judges: McDonald, BARKETT and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 589
Pages: 225–231

Head Matter:
Janet W. SPOHR, Petitioner, v. John C. BERRYMAN, etc., et al., Respondents.
No. 76526.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 26, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1991.
Freeman W. Bamer, Jr. of Cromwell, Pfaffenberger, Dahlmeier, Barner & Griffin, North Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Kenneth G. Spillias and Leonard J. Adler of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Berryman.
Carol McLean Brewer and Peter Matwic-zyk of Mettler & Gilson, Palm Beach, for Spohr and Gardner.

Opinion:
GRIMES, Justice.
We review Spohr v. Berryman, 564 So.2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), because of conflict with Hofer v. Caldwell, 53 So.2d 872 (Fla.1951). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.
In contemplation of the dissolution of his marriage, William E. Spohr entered into an agreement with his wife, Anna Spohr, that included a provision that he would prepare and have in his possession at all times a will in which he would bequeath and devise to his wife and children not less than one half of his estate. This agreement was incorporated into a 1954 judgment of dissolution. The following year, Mr. Spohr and Janet Spohr were married. Mr. Spohr died in 1986. Contrary to his agreement with Anna Spohr, his will left his entire estate to his surviving spouse, Janet Spohr.
The first publication of the notice of administration of Mr. Spohr's estate in Palm Beach County occurred on January 9, 1987. Under section 733.702, Florida Statutes (1985), this meant that claims against the estate had to be filed by no later than April 9, 1987. Neither Anna Spohr nor Mr. Spohr's children filed a written statement of claim against the estate within that time. However, on April 7, 1987, Anna Spohr and the children filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County against the personal representative, asserting a cause of action based upon the marital settlement agreement. Janet Spohr intervened as a defendant and filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that the timely filing of the lawsuit did not satisfy the requirements of section 733.702 for filing a claim against the estate and therefore entered summary judgment for the defendants.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment. The court reasoned that section 733.702 was only applicable to claims which arose before the death of the decedent and that Mr. Spohr's failure to devise at least half of his estate to his ex-wife and his children did not occur until after his death. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the court to decide whether the filing of the lawsuit met the requirements of filing a claim against the estate.
Section 733.702, Florida Statutes (1985), reads in pertinent part:
(1) No claim or demand against the decedent's estate that arose before the death of the decedent, including claims of the state and any of its subdivisions, whether due or not, direct or contingent, or liquidated or unliquidated; no claim for funeral or burial expenses; no claim for personal property in the possession of the personal representative; and no claim for damages, including, but not limited to, an action founded on fraud or another wrongful act or omission of the decedent, is binding on the estate, on the personal representative, or on any beneficiary unless presented:
(a) Within 3 months from the time of the first publication of the notice of administration, even though the personal representative has recognized the claim or demand by paying a part of it or interest on it or otherwise_
(2) No cause of action heretofore or hereafter accruing, including, but not limited to, an action founded upon fraud or other wrongful act or omission, shall survive the death of the person against whom the claim may be made, whether an action is pending at the death of the person or not, unless the claim is filed in the manner provided in this part and within the time limited.
While known as a statute of nonclaim, it is nevertheless a statute of limitations. Barnett Bank v. Estate of Read, 493 So.2d 447 (Fla.1986).
In Hofer v. Caldwell, this Court held that in order to seek specific performance of a decedent's oral agreement to execute a reciprocal will, it was necessary to file a claim against the estate under section 733.-16, Florida Statutes (1945), the predecessor of the current nonclaim statute. The court below distinguished Hofer by pointing out that section 733.16 did not contain the present language that refers to claims "that arose before the death of the decedent." § 733.702(1), Fla.Stat. (1985). We acknowledge the change of statutory language, but we do not believe that it affects the validity of the Hofer decision.
While the claim of Anna Spohr and the children did not come to fruition until the contents of Mr. Spohr's will were ascertained following his death, the claim, itself, was based upon an agreement which was made many years before his death. Claims against an estate are not limited to obligations of the decedent that could have been enforced against him while living. Claims are defined as "liabilities of the decedent, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and funeral expenses." § 731.201(4), Fla.Stat. (1985). The non-claim statute, section 733.702, includes claims "whether due or not, direct or contingent, or liquidated or unliquidated." A contingent claim is "one where the liability depends on some future event, which may or may not happen, which renders it uncertain whether there ever will be a liabili ty." Van Sciver v. Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank, 88 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla.1956). The claim against Spohr's estate was a contingent claim.
We believe that the reference in the statute to claims arising before the death of the decedent is intended to make clear that it is unnecessary to file a statement of claim in order to prosecute an action against the estate that is predicated upon events that take place after the decedent's death. See, e.g., In re Estate of Kulow, 439 So.2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (claim for money mistakenly paid to personal representative after the decedent's death). Our interpretation is consistent with the public policy of providing for the speedy settlement of estates. See In re Estate of Brown, 117 So.2d 478 (Fla.1960). If claims based upon agreements to make a will are not required to be filed in three months, a lawsuit could be filed at any time until three years after the decedent's death, see section 733.710, Florida Statutes (1985), and the payment of claims and the distribution to the beneficiaries could be substantially delayed or disrupted.
Because of our holding that the filing of a claim was required, we must also address the question of whether the filing of the lawsuit within the nonclaim period constituted compliance with section 733.-702. We conclude that it did not. Under earlier versions of the Florida Probate Code, then known as Florida probate law, it is clear that the mere filing of an action against the personal representative was not sufficient compliance with the requirement to file a statement of claim under the nonclaim statute. Jones v. Allen, 134 Fla. 751, 184 So. 651 (1938); A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157 (1931). In 1945 the legislature amended the Florida probate law to permit the filing of a lawsuit against a decedent's personal representative to act as a substitute for filing a claim in the appropriate probate court, provided that both the filing of the suit and the service of process on the personal representative were accomplished within the nonclaim period. Ch. 22783, Laws of Fla. (1945); § 733.16(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1949). While this provision remained in effect until 1974, it was eliminated in the adoption of the new Florida Probate Code. See ch. 74-106, Laws of Fla. The omission of words in an amending statute suggests that the legislature intended that the statute have a different meaning from that previously accorded. Capella v. City of Gainesville, 377 So.2d 658 (Fla.1979).
Further evidence of legislative intent is found in the fact that the Uniform Probate Code contains an explicit provision under Which the filing of a lawsuit against the personal representative is deemed the equivalent of the filing of a claim in the probate court. Unif. Probate Code § 3-804(2), 8 U.L.A. 361 (1990). While the Florida Probate Code incorporated many aspects of the Uniform Probate Code, this provision was noticeably omitted.
The strongest authority for permitting the institution of a lawsuit to take the place of the filing of a statement of claim is Steigman v. Danese, 502 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 998 (1987). In that case the court held that the requirements of section 733.702 had been sufficiently met when the suit was filed and all interested parties had been served within the three-month statutory period. Professor David T. Smith, author of the Florida Probate Code Manual, disapproves of Steigman by explaining:
Likewise, a claim must be filed when the action is brought against the estate within three months after the publication of the notice of administration and personal jurisdiction over the personal representative is acquired. This legal principle seems to have been disregarded by the court in Steigman v. Danese, 502 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In this case the court suggests that the filing of a civil action within the statutory period permitted by F.S. 733.702 satisfies the filing requirement of F.S. 733.703. To the extent that the court's language relates to an action for monetary damages this author submits that the court's approach is incorrect. Filing a court action as an alternative to, or as the equivalent of, the filing of a claim in the probate court was permitted under prior law, specifically former F.S. 733.16(1). It is not now allowed. See F.S. 733.702(2). F.S. 733.-703 relates to the form and manner of representing the claim in probate court.
1 Fla. Probate Code Manual (D & S) ch. 7, at 29-30 (Mar. 1990). Like Professor Smith, we do not believe that the institution of a lawsuit constitutes the filing of a statement of claim under section 733.702.
The primary purpose of section 733.702 is to promote an early determination of claims against an estate in order that the claims may be paid and the remaining assets distributed to the beneficiaries in an expeditious manner. It is important that all interested parties be able to ascertain that claims have been filed against an estate. When served with a complaint, a personal representative would know that a claim was being asserted, but other interested parties might not have such knowledge so as to be able to take the necessary steps to protect their interests. Moreover, the filing of a lawsuit without the filing of a claim thwarts the procedure prescribed by the Florida Probate Code that seeks to avoid litigation over claims whenever possible. Thus, when a statement of claim has been timely filed, the personal representative has a short period of time within which to determine whether or not to accept the claim. § 733.705(2), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986). The claimant need only institute a lawsuit if the personal representative files a timely objection. § 733.705(3), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986). Even though probate proceedings have now been consolidated into circuit court, it is imperative that the probate file contain every statement of claim.
We quash the decision below and disapprove Steigman to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, BARKETT and HARDING, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which SHAW, C.J. and KOGAN, J., concur.
. This statute of limitations has now been reduced to two years. Ch. 89-340, § 9, Laws of Fla.
. Even if Steigman were applicable, there is considerable doubt whether Anna Spohr and the children could take advantage of the decision. While the complaint was filed two days before the end of the nonclaim period, the summons for service on the personal representative was not issued until the last day of the period, and the record does not reflect any service upon the personal representative. However, we do not have to resolve this question because we do not accept the rationale of Steigman. The argument that the personal representative waived the defense by later waiving service of process and filing an answer is irrelevant because the lawsuit did not take the place of filing a statement of claim.
. On or before the expiration of four months from the first publication of notice of administration or within thirty days from the timely filing of a claim, whichever occurs later.