## Facts

- Jane Althea Caswell died in April 2017 owning a home in Golden Beach, Florida, titled solely in her name.
- Caswell’s will appointed her brother, Errol W. Caswell, as the personal representative of her estate and did not mention Jorge L. Cantero.
- In June 2017, the personal representative properly published the notice to creditors under Florida probate law; the three-month creditor period expired in September 2017.
- No creditor claims were filed during the published claims period, and the probate court ordered the sale of Caswell’s home.
- In January 2018—months after the claims period expired—Cantero filed a statement of claim and sued the personal representative, asserting he was entitled to the sale proceeds.
- Cantero contended he was a “reasonably ascertainable creditor” who should have received personal service of the notice to creditors, which would prevent his claim from being time-barred.
- At an evidentiary hearing, Cantero testified that he had been in a relationship with Caswell in the 1990s and had paid the home’s mortgage for about five years with an understanding that the home would belong to him when Caswell died.
- Cantero admitted there were no documents supporting the alleged arrangement, and the property remained titled in Caswell’s name.
- The personal representative testified Cantero called twice after Caswell’s death: first to offer condolences and mention possible car parts left in the garage, and second to report the garage was locked; Cantero did not mention any claim to the home or its proceeds in either call.
- The personal representative referred Cantero to the estate’s attorney, who testified he spoke with Cantero for less than a minute and that Cantero only asked about the car parts.
- The probate court found Cantero’s testimony not credible, found he was not a reasonably ascertainable creditor, and granted the estate’s motion to strike Cantero’s claim as untimely.

## Issues

1. Did the probate court abuse its discretion by finding Cantero was not a reasonably ascertainable creditor entitled to personal service of the notice to creditors, and by striking his late-filed claim as time-barred?

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed.
- The court held the record supported the probate court’s finding that Cantero was not a reasonably ascertainable creditor.
- The court held the probate court acted within its discretion in striking Cantero’s claim as untimely because he filed after the three-month period triggered by publication of notice.

## Legal Principles

- Florida probate law requires a personal representative to publish notice to creditors and to serve the notice on creditors who are known or reasonably discoverable through a reasonably diligent search. Fla. Stat. § 733.2121.
- Creditors who are not reasonably ascertainable are bound by the three-month deadline that runs from first publication of the notice to creditors; claims filed after that deadline may be stricken as untimely.
- Whether a claimant qualifies as a reasonably ascertainable creditor is a fact-driven determination; appellate review of an order striking a claim on this ground is for abuse of discretion.
- An appellate court will not reweigh evidence or second-guess credibility determinations supported by the record.
- A claimant’s undocumented assertion of an oral promise to receive property at death, without objective signs in the decedent’s records and without timely communication of a claim to the personal representative, does not require the estate to treat the claimant as a reasonably ascertainable creditor for purposes of personal service.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the order striking Cantero’s probate claim as untimely because the probate court permissibly found, based on credited testimony and the lack of any supporting records or timely notice of a claim, that Cantero was not a reasonably ascertainable creditor entitled to personal service of the notice to creditors; therefore, the published notice triggered the three-month bar and Cantero’s January 2018 filing came too late.


Cantero v. Estate of Caswell, 305 So. 3d 37 (2019)