Court Opinion

ID: 9928277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 15:03:09.346798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:20.663081
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed January 31, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D23-0054
                        Lower Tribunal No. 20-4641
                           ________________

                           Eva Maria Anderson,
                                Appellant,

                                     vs.

                     In Re: Estate of Mario Quintero,
                                 Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E.
Cueto, Judge.

      Law Offices of Scott Alan Orth, P.A., and Scott Alan Orth (Hollywood),
for appellant.

     Solomon Appeals, Mediation & Arbitration, and Donna Greenspan
Solomon (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

     SCALES, J.
      Appellant Eva Maria Anderson appeals two probate court orders 1 that

effectively denied Anderson’s successive attempt to have the probate court

consider a document as a lost will. We affirm because the probate court

correctly concluded that our holding in Anderson v. Estate of Quintero, 374

So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Anderson I”) precluded Anderson’s

successive attempt to have the document probated.

      I. Relevant Factual Background

      In November 2020, Anderson filed in the probate court a petition

seeking to establish that a document presented to the probate court was a

lost will (the “Lost Will”). On August 17, 2021, the probate court entered an

order (“August 17th order”) determining that the Lost Will was invalid. 2 Based

on this finding of invalidity, the probate court also concluded in its August

17th order that the probate case would proceed as if the decedent had died

intestate. Anderson did not appeal this August 17th order but, instead,

appealed that portion of a September 8, 2021 homestead determination

order that merely reiterated the August 17th order’s intestacy finding.

1
  The orders are a December 8, 2022 order granting the personal
representative of the appellee Estate of Mario Quintero’s (the “Estate”)
motion to preclude the taking of depositions and a December 14, 2022 order
denying Anderson’s renewed petition to establish a lost will.
2
  The probate court found that the Lost Will, allegedly signed by the
decedent, was not witnessed and bore a defective notarization.

                                      2
Characterizing the August 17th order as an appealable final order, we

determined, in Anderson I, that we lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate

Anderson’s attempted untimely appeal of the intestacy finding which had

been reiterated in the September 8, 2021 homestead determination order,

but which initially was the basis of the August 17th order. Anderson I, 374

So. 3d at 69.

     After our Anderson I opinion issued on August 31, 2021, Anderson

filed, on September 7, 2022, a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(2)

motion3 seeking to vacate the reiterated intestacy finding contained in the

September 8, 2021 order. Anderson’s rule 1.540(b)(2) motion asserted that

the intestacy finding should be vacated because Anderson had new

evidence to indicate that the Lost Will had been properly signed, witnessed,

and notarized. Anderson then filed an October 13, 2021 renewed petition to

establish what Anderson characterized as a second lost will (the “renewed

petition”). This so-called second lost will, appended to Anderson’s renewed

3
   A proceeding to establish a lost or destroyed or later discovered will is
considered an adversary proceeding under the Florida Probate rules. See
Fla. Prob. R. 5.025(a). As such, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,
including rule 1.540(b)(2), are applicable to the proceedings. See Fla. Prob.
R. 5.025(d)(2). Rule 1.540(b) authorizes a trial court to vacate a final
judgment upon the movant’s showing of “newly discovered evidence which
by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new
trial or rehearing[.]” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(2)

                                     3
petition, though, is identical to the Lost Will that Anderson had initially

presented to the probate court in November 2020, and which the probate

court, in its August 17th order, had determined was invalid.

     Then, on November 3, 2022, as an apparent amendment to her

renewed petition, Anderson filed with the trial court a second version of the

so-called second lost will. This second version again contained the same

testamentary provisions as the Lost Will, but in this version both the

decedent’s signature and the improper notarization were removed. On

November 18, 2022, Anderson filed notices seeking to take two depositions

to elicit testimony that, presumably, would validate the so-called second lost

will. On that same day, the Estate filed a motion for protective order arguing

that, in light of our Anderson I opinion, Anderson had no basis for continuing

her attempts to intervene in the probate matter.

     On December 6, 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing on

Anderson’s renewed petition and the Estate’s motion for protective order

directed toward Anderson’s attempt to take depositions. On December 8,

2022, the probate court entered an order granting the Estate’s motion for

protective order. And on December 14, 2022, deeming our Anderson I

opinion “law of the case,” the probate court entered an order denying

Anderson’s renewed petition. Anderson timely appeals both of these orders.

                                      4
Our   record indicates that the probate court did not adjudicate

Anderson’s pending rule 1.540(b)(2) motion of September 7, 2022.

      II. Analysis

       At the outset, we note that the parties do not seem to disagree with

the general notion that our holding in Anderson I would not preclude a

proponent of a lost will – whether that proponent be Anderson or someone

else – from seeking to establish the validity of a will that is different from the

one invalidated in the probate court’s August 17th order. Indeed, a lost will

may be presented to the probate court at any time before the discharge of

an estate. See § 733.207, Fla. Stat. (2022) (“Any interested person may

establish the full and precise terms of a lost or destroyed will and offer the

will for probate.”); § 733.208, Fla. Stat. (2022) (“No will or codicil may be

offered after the testate or intestate estate has been completely administered

and the personal representative discharged”). According to our record, to

date, the estate has not been closed.

      The parties’ disagreement is premised upon whether Florida’s “law of

the case” doctrine applies so as to preclude Anderson from seeking to have

the so-called second lost will probated.        The problem with Anderson’s

argument is that, irrespective of Anderson’s characterization of the

documents, at no point did Anderson seek to have probated a will that

                                        5
differed in any meaningful way from the Lost Will that the probate court

concluded was invalid in its August 17th order. Put another way, Anderson’s

renewed petition did not seek to have the trial court probate a different will

from the one she initially unsuccessfully sought to have probated. Rather,

Anderson’s renewed petition merely continued her quest to have the Lost

Will admitted to probate; her unadjudicated rule 1.540(b)(2) motion is based

on her alleged discovery of “new evidence” that, she asserts, would establish

the validity of the Lost Will. Anderson’s renewed petition attached to it the

exact same document that was attached to Anderson’s initial November

2020 petition; and then, in a second swing of the bat Anderson filed another

document that is substantially the same except for two scrubbed signatures.

In other words, Anderson’s successive efforts produced no second lost will.

        Under the unique circumstances presented in this case, the trial court

correctly determined that this Court’s Anderson I holding4 – concluding that

the August 17th order was a final appealable order that Anderson had failed

to appeal – effectively precluded Anderson’s successive attempt to have the

Lost Will probated. Anderson’s second attempt was successive because,

essentially, she presented the same will to the trial court that she presented

the first time, i.e., a will that the probate court, in its August 17th order,

4
    Anderson I, 374 So. 3d at 69.

                                       6
concluded was invalid. This Court’s determination in Anderson I that we

lacked appellate jurisdiction to review this final August 17th order rendered

that order’s invalidity finding “law of the case.” See Danforth v. Danforth, 363

So. 3d 242, 243 n.1 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023).

      Finally, to the extent that Anderson assigns error to the probate court

for not adjudicating her September 7, 2022 rule 1.540(b)(2) motion, we

conclude that this motion was untimely, and therefore not cognizable. As

mentioned above, Anderson’s September 7, 2022 rule 1.540(b)(2) motion

asserted that “new evidence” would validate the Lost Will that the probate

court’s August 17th order determined was invalid. For her rule 1.540(b)(2)

motion to be cognizable, though, it had to have been filed within one year of

the rendition of the August 17th order,5 that is, on or before August 16, 2022.

Anderson’s September 7, 2022 rule 1.540(b) motion was therefore untimely

and not cognizable. See Linares v. Bank of Am., N.A., 278 So. 3d 330, 332

(Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

      To circumvent this, Anderson argues that it was the reiterated intestacy

finding – contained in the September 8, 2021 order – that her September 7,

2022 rule 1.540(b)(2) motion sought to vacate, and therefore her motion was

5
 A rule 1.540(b)(2) motion, based on the discovery of new evidence, must
be filed within one year of the rendition of the final judgment sought to be
vacated. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540.

                                       7
timely. But, as we held in Anderson I, the reiterated intestacy finding

contained in the September 8, 2021 order did not create a new window of

jurisdictional opportunity. Anderson I, 374 So. 3d at 70 (“We . . . reject

Anderson’s suggestion that, by reiterating the August 17 order’s intestacy

finding in its September 8 order, the probate court somehow re-opened an

appellate window to allow for an untimely appeal of the intestacy finding

contained in the August 17 order.”). Rule 1.540(b) allows a trial court, in very

narrow, strictly enumerated instances, to revisit findings and holdings

contained in final orders and judgments. Balmoral Condo. Ass’n v. Grimaldi,

107 So. 3d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). We decline Anderson’s invitation

to expand the scope of rule 1.540(b) to allow a challenge to a finding or

holding that is a mere reiteration of a finding or holding initially contained in

a previous order.6

6
   Without deciding the issue, we note that Anderson’s September 8, 2022
rule 1.540(b)(2) motion may not have been cognizable for yet another
reason: it is successive. Perez v. Saima Grp. Corp., 347 So. 3d 421, 422
(Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“We are compelled to dismiss the appeal because we
lack appellate jurisdiction to review an order denying a successive rule
1.540(b) motion where, as here, the grounds asserted in the successive
motion were known to the movant at the time the movant filed the first rule
1.540(b) motion.”). While this Court was considering Anderson I, Anderson
asked that we relinquish jurisdiction to allow the probate court to adjudicate
her first rule 1.540(b) motion, filed on October 12, 2021, which we did. On
January 11, 2022, the probate court entered its order denying Anderson’s
first rule 1.540(b) motion, and Anderson then amended her Anderson I notice

                                       8
     III. Conclusion

     We conclude that the probate court did not err (i) by applying Florida’s

law of the case doctrine to deny Anderson’s renewed petition to establish a

lost will, and (ii) by not adjudicating Anderson’s September 7, 2022 rule

1.540(b)(2) motion.

     Affirmed.

of appeal to include this order. We affirmed the probate court’s January 11,
2022 order in Anderson I. See Anderson I, 374 So. 3d at 70.

                                     9