Serving as a personal representative to an estate comes with many rights and obligations (see Chapter 733 of the Florida Statutes). One of those duties, for example, involves contacting creditors of the deceased person and letting those creditors know of the death. Those creditors then have a period of time to file a claim to be paid. Whether or not they are ever paid depends upon a variety of factors, largely dependent upon the estate actually having money to pay them.
The personal representative’s job can be somewhat difficult in notifying the creditors. Credit card loans and mortgage debts, for example, are pretty obvious: the bills probably come directly to the deceased person’s home. The personal representative generally would not have a difficult time in figuring out whom to contact to let the lender know of the death.
Some lenders, however, are not so easy to find. This is an important distinction. If a lender is relatively easy to find, it is considered a “reasonably ascertainable” creditor and has two years after the estate’s “notice of creditors” is published in order to file its claim. But, if the creditor is not “reasonably ascertainable,” it has only three months to file its claim. In other words, if you’re a creditor, you have some interest in being dubbed not “reasonably ascertainable,” as it gives you more time to file your claim.
But whose job is it to define your status? Well, according to Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals, the creditor essentially has the burden of proof. In Lubee v. Adams, a personal representative contacted several creditors to inform them of the death of a debtor. The personal representative did not contact Mr. Lubee. Mr. Lubee did not file a claim until about a year later, claiming he was a “reasonably ascertainable” creditor and the failure to receive notice of death meant he could file his claim any time within the two-year window afforded to other reasonably ascertainable creditors.
The personal representative had not identified Mr. Lubee as a “reasonably ascertainable” creditor; therefore, according to the court, Mr. Lubee had two options. Option A: Mr. Lubee could file his claim within the three-month window afforded to all creditors. Option B: Mr. Lubee could file for an extension of time within that two-year window. Option B would essentially provide Mr. Lubee with status as a “reasonably ascertainable” creditor, but the burden would be on Mr. Lubee to prove that status.
Mr. Lubee unfortunately did not choose either option, but instead simply tried to file a claim. Since the three months had passed, his claim was barred. Instead, he should have filed for an extension of time. While this would have required him to prove he was a “reasonably ascertainable” creditor, doing so would have been more beneficial than simply trying to file a claim that was destined to be thrown out.
Creditor’s rights in probate proceedings can be complicated, as Mr. Lubee’s case highlights. As always, a Jacksonville Probate Litigation Attorney can help answer any questions you have regarding probate procedures.