With 53 years of litigation and administration experience in Probate, Trust and Guardianship, and success before the District Courts of Appeal and the Florida Supreme Court, our team of attorneys and paralegals are ready to work for you.
Experienced attorneys and counselors at law practiced in the areas of Probate, Guardianship and Trust litigation and administration, Estate Planning including wills and trusts, and appeals.
Our firm provides technical knowledge and fervent advocacy in courtroom litigation, as well as hands-on attorney client communication of technical and strategic aspects of a case. Litigation in probate and guardianship actions often involves adversarial interaction between family and loved ones. Whether, as a result of the loss of a loved one or the struggle with mental incapacity, the client should feel comfort in leaning on a trusted attorney who can competently and efficiently administer all court matters, while simultaneously managing the personalities of the participants.
The lawyers at Golden Glasko and Associates possess the legal proficiency to handle the most complex courtroom litigation matters, and the experience to provide one-on-one counseling and client care.
Jones v. Golden, 176 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 2015). Our firm prevailed in the Florida Supreme Court in this appeal to defend our firm's win in the 4th DCA for which conflict was certified with the 1st and 5th District Courts of Appeal. The issue was the striking of a Creditor's Statement of Claim. Prior to this case, Florida law required that known or reasonably ascertainable creditors must first file a motion for enlargement of time to file any Statement of Claim after the expiration of the 3 month publication period. This Florida Supreme Court opinion created law in Florida to protect known or reasonably ascertainable creditors of estates who do not receive actual notice of their right to file a claim.
Ripoll v. Comprehensive Personal Care Services, Inc. 963 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2007). Prevailed in this appeal which recognizes the probate court's inherent authority to monitor a guardianship and to take all action the Court deems necessary, including temporary injuctions, to preserve the assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries, even though ultimate ownership of those assets may be in dispute.
Maher v. Iglikova, 138 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2014). Prevailed in reversing a trial court order adjudicating a "pretermitted child" as a probate beneficiary. A child was born to the Decedent before the will was executed, but the Decedent did not learn of the child until after the will was executed. Upon learning of the child, an adjudication of paternity was in the Family Court. Probate trial court found that he child was a pretermitted beneficiary because an adjudication of paternity merely acknowledges a previously existing relationship. Because the parental relationship was not created after the execution of the will, the child was not a "pretermitted" beneficiary per the statute.
