Grant v. Kunke
In a probate dispute over caregiving claims against a decedent's estate, the Second District affirmed the probate court's determination that the caregiving daughter was a reasonably ascertainable creditor who, after an objection was filed, had to pursue the merits of her claim in an independent civil action (and whose claim was barred when she failed to act within the 45 days allowed). The court reversed as to her husband, holding the probate court abused its discretion in finding him not to be a reasonably ascertainable creditor where the personal representative had actual knowledge of the caregiving arrangement and had encouraged the couple to document expenses and file claims.
Key facts
- Daughter and her husband claimed the decedent's estate owed them compensation for caregiving services provided to the decedent during her lifetime.
- The probate court determined the daughter was a reasonably ascertainable creditor but found the husband was not; after an objection was filed to the daughter's claim, the court required her to pursue the merits in an independent civil action, which she failed to do within 45 days, resulting in the claim being barred.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Practitioners handling estate creditor claims get a clear statement that the personal representative's actual knowledge—not the beneficiaries' willingness to pay—controls whether a claimant is 'reasonably ascertainable'… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
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.