Under F.S. 733.212, potential litigants served with a notice of administration have only 3 months to object “to the validity of the will, the qualifications of the personal representative, venue, or jurisdiction of the court” or those objections “are forever barred.”
Whenever you see the word “jurisdiction” used in a statute without more, you need to ask yourself what kind of jurisdiction is the statute referring to. As explained in one of my all-time favorite Florida Bar Journal articles, Florida’s Third Species of Jurisdiction, there are three kinds of jurisdiction implied in any court proceeding. Which category of jurisdiction your particular dispute falls into determines when, and if, you’re jurisdictional challenge is time barred.
See Florida’s Third Species of Jurisdiction.
As reflected in the chart, if F.S. 733.212 is referring to subject matter jurisdiction, the statute’s 3-month limitation period for jurisdictional challenges is unenforceable because that kind of jurisdictional challenge is never time barred. On the other hand, if the statute is referring to in rem or personal jurisdiction, the statute works because those jurisdictional challenges are subject to waiver.
Case Study
Pastor v. Pastor, __ So.2d __ (Fla. 4th DCA April 19, 2006)
This case involved a domiciliary probate proceeding. The challenger objected to the decedent’s domicile after the 3-month limitation period in F.S. 733.212 had lapsed. The challenger tried to get around this time bar by arguing that a domicile challenge in a domiciliary probate proceeding is a form of subject matter jurisdiction challenge, so it’s not subject to waiver.
Does a decedent’s domicile define a Florida court’s subject matter jurisdiction over domiciliary probate proceedings? NO
Both at the trial court level and on appeal the courts ruled that challenging domicile in a domiciliary probate proceeding was characterized not as a form of jurisdictional challenge, but as a venue challenge. So the whole jurisdictional argument doesn’t even apply. So saith the 4th DCA:
The trial court correctly recognized that subject matter jurisdiction is not determined by the decedent’s domicile; rather, it is based on the power of the court over the class of cases to which the controversy belongs. See Ruth v. Department of Legal Affairs, 684 So. 2d 181, 185 (Fla. 1996); Chase Bank of Texas Nat’l Ass’n. v. Department of Ins., 860 So. 2d 472, 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). …
In probate, domicile is treated as a component of venue. See § 733.101(1), Florida Statutes. Under the reasoning in Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. State, 295 So. 2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), venue comes into play once the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, i.e., in this case, the class of probate cases.
Does this mean it’s possible we might have Florida courts administering a decedent’s estate as a domiciliary probate proceeding even if it can be conclusively proved the decedent was not domiciled in Florida? Yes. Why is that OK? Because we value finality and efficiency in those cases over the competing goal of getting the domicile issue right in ever case. Again, so saith the 4th DCA:
We are not unmindful of Appellant’s argument that finding such an objection to subject matter jurisdiction can be waived under the statute will effectively allow Florida courts to probate a non-domiciliary’s estate through domiciliary administration. Nevertheless, we conclude that Appellant may not challenge the court’s jurisdiction where he received the notice of administration, the trial court determined domicile through the verified petition, and the three-month period to object to jurisdiction passed before filing his claims. There is a “strong public policy” in this state “in favor of settling and closing estates in a speedy manner.” May v. Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co., 771 So. 2d 1143, 1151 (Fla. 2000). If the court were to hold that domicile is a component of subject matter jurisdiction, any estate could be re-opened based on such a belated objection. This would render section 733.212(3) meaningless and would contravene Florida’s public policy as expressed in May. See also In re Estate of Williamson, 95 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1957).
Lesson Learned?
In the probate-litigation context, there is a huge advantage to understanding how quickly claims may be cut off. If you represent the party expecting to defend against a possible challenge, the probate code provides ample opportunities for building almost air-tight defenses to litigation. If you represent a party that is thinking about filing an objection, quick decisive action is of paramount importance.