Opinion
No. 3D21-1761
09-14-2022
Joelle Verbois ADENIN, Appellant, v. In re: ESTATE OF Jean Claude M. ADENIN, Appellee.
Feiler & Leach, P.L., and Martin E. Leach, and Jonathan M. Drucker, P.A., and Jonathan M. Drucker, for appellant. Young, Berman, Karpf & Karpf, P.A., and Andrew S. Berman, for appellee.
Feiler & Leach, P.L., and Martin E. Leach, and Jonathan M. Drucker, P.A., and Jonathan M. Drucker, for appellant.
Young, Berman, Karpf & Karpf, P.A., and Andrew S. Berman, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Appellant, the widow of the decedent, challenges a final order dismissing her petition for orders of administration for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. The petition alleged the decedent was a domiciliary of Florida and died intestate. Neither allegation proved correct, and it was revealed that a will, purportedly executed by the decedent days before his death, had been submitted for probate in North Carolina. Contending two luxury vehicles, pending estate-related lawsuits, and the decedent's personal effects were all located in Florida, appellant orally sought to invoke ancillary jurisdiction. Ancillary administration is strictly circumscribed by statute and rule, and here, appellant failed to comply with either the procedural or substantive requirements. See § 733.101(b), Fla. Stat. (2021) ; § 734.102, Fla. Stat. (2021) ; Fla. Prob. R. 5.470. Accordingly, we affirm the order under review without prejudice to the filing of a proper petition for ancillary administration. See Piloto v. Lauria, 45 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Affirmed.