Not all payment demands against a probate estate are created equal. Some are subject to the filing deadlines applicable to probate creditor claims under F.S. 733.702 and F.S. 733.710. Many are not. Why does this matter? Because Florida’s ultra-short limitations periods for probate creditor claims are a huge trap for the unwary.
The Framing Effect
But it’s not always easy to explain to a busy probate judge who’s juggling hundreds of cases at a time with little or no support, which side of the line you fall on. Against this backdrop, how you frame your claim can be outcome-determinative. Cognitive biases — such as the framing effect — are powerful: make sure they’re working for you, not against you.
For example, if you want to enforce a fee-shifting award against a probate estate arising out of a post-death arbitration proceeding, don’t frame your demand as a “statement of claim.” Why? Because this is a technical term under Probate Rule 5.490 that applies specifically to probate creditor claims. So if you file a “statement of claim,” the probate court’s default assumption is that you’re pursing some kind of probate creditor claim, and thus subject to filing deadlines that could doom your claim from the outset. By contrast, if you frame your claim as an arbitration-related motion governed by section 682.12 of Florida’s arbitration code confirming a post-death arbitration award, at the very least you’re not automatically evoking a bunch of probate-related concepts and ideas that can come back to bite you. Do these framing decisions matter in the real world? Yes! … as the claimant in the Palm Garden case learned the hard way.
Case Study
Palm Garden of Winter Haven, LLC v. Estate of Demps, 402 So.3d 1156 (Fla. 6th DCA February 07, 2025)
Leon Demps, the decedent, had resided in a nursing home run by Palm Garden at the time of his death. His estate filed suit against Palm Garden, alleging negligence, wrongful death, and various other claims. Palm Garden successfully petitioned the court to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement entered into by the decedent during his residence. The agreement allowed for Palm Garden to be reimbursed for fees and costs incurred during arbitration, should it prevail in the matter. Palm Garden did in fact prevail and was awarded $193,176.11 for fees and costs pursuant to the arbitration agreement. It then filed a motion to prohibit disbursement of estate proceeds in the probate case and subsequently filed a “statement of claim” against the estate for the award amount. Here’s how the appellate court summarized these crucial facts:
In April 2017, Palm Garden successfully moved in the negligence action to compel binding arbitration under the arbitration agreement. The arbitration resulted in a defense verdict and determination that Palm Garden was entitled to its costs, after which the arbitration panel awarded Palm Garden $193,176.11 as taxable costs. Over five and one-half years after it obtained the cost award, Palm Garden filed in the probate case a Motion to Prohibit Disbursement of Estate Proceeds. Two days after filing that motion, it filed a statement of claim for $193,176.11.
As the probate creditor claim period had expired over 5 years before the “statement of claim” was filed, the estate moved to strike the claim as untimely pursuant to the strict filing deadlines for probate creditor claims. The probate court agreed and barred the claim.
An interpretation of the same strict probate-filing guidelines resulted in the appellate court’s reversal of the probate court’s order, based on the rationale that Palm Garden’s payment demand was not the type of “claim” subject to the probate creditor claim filing deadlines, stating that
(t)he term “claim” as used in section 733.702, is defined as “a liability of the decedent, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and funeral expense. The term does not include an expense of administration or estate, inheritance, succession or other death taxes.” S 731.201(4), Fla. Stat. (2016). Any claim not filed withing section 733.702(1)’s prescribed timeframe is barred, absent an extension by the court for one of three grounds not pertinent here. S 733.702(3), Fla Stat. The reference in section 733.702(1) 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.” Spohr v. Berryman, 589 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla. 1991).
The appellate court thus determined that Palm Garden’s claim not only did not arise prior to decedent’s death, it also arose only as a result of the personal representative’s decision to file the lawsuit. As such, Palm Garden’s claim was created by the estate’s actions, not by any claim incurred against Mr. Demps prior to his death.
The Estate triggered the cost provision of the arbitration agreement by filing suit. Had the Estate not initiated the action, Palm Garden’s right to recover costs would not have arisen – it had no contingent claim for costs until the suit was filed. Its contingent claim was thus against the Estate and did not arise during Mr. Demps’ lifetime.
The claim for the awarded arbitration expenses was therefore enforceable and the case was remanded to the probate court for the claim to proceed accordingly.
The power of framing
Could the claimant in the Palm Garden case have avoided the costs and delays of this appeal if it had framed its payment demand against the estate as a motion for confirmation of arbitration award vs. a statement of claim. Maybe. But this we know for sure: the risk of judicial error increases if we erroneously frame our claims.