Futch v. Haney
A surviving spouse filed three successive, timely petitions for extension of time to make her elective share election, then filed the election while the last petition was pending. The trial court denied the last extension and sustained objections that the election was untimely. The Second District reversed, holding that under section 732.2135(4), Florida Statutes, the mere filing of a petition for extension tolls the time for making the election, and no court ruling on the petition is required.
Key facts
- Surviving spouse filed three successive, timely petitions for extension of time to make her elective share election under the Florida elective share statute, then filed the election while the last petition was pending.
- Trial court denied the final extension petition and sustained objections that the election was untimely, finding the spouse did not comply with the six-month deadline for making the election.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision provides the first clear appellate construction of the tolling provision in section 732.2135(4), a recurring trap in probate practice. Counsel for surviving spouses can rely on it to protect an election… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.