- Court
- Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
- Case Number
- 4D2025-0718
- Date Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Judge
- Klingensmith, J.
- Disposition
- Affirmed
Background
David Mantwill died in July 2023 and was survived by his sister, Nancy Womer, who was appointed personal representative. Womer published a Notice to Creditors in September 2023, advising that claims must be filed within three months. Through her agents, Womer searched the decedent’s financial and personal records, consulted with an individual familiar with his affairs, and searched public records for recorded judgments — finding no active claim by David Ceglio.
Ceglio had a history of litigation with the decedent arising from trust disputes and had filed a 2018 lawsuit seeking trust accountings. However, the decedent’s assistant informed Womer’s son that prior litigation involving Ceglio had been resolved, and no filings had been made in Ceglio’s lawsuit for several years before death. Ceglio did not learn of the death until February 2024 (through an internet search) and filed a statement of claim in March 2024 — approximately six months after the Notice to Creditors was published.
The probate court denied Ceglio’s motion for extension of time, finding that Womer conducted a diligent search and Ceglio was not a reasonably ascertainable creditor.
Holding
The Fourth DCA affirmed. The court applied abuse-of-discretion review, deferring to the probate court’s credibility findings and determination that competent, substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Ceglio was not reasonably ascertainable. The court found that the personal representative’s search was adequate: her agents reviewed the decedent’s records, found no indication of an active claim, were told prior litigation had been resolved, and conducted public records searches revealing no judgments.
The court emphasized that the probate court heard testimony from multiple witnesses and made credibility determinations — specifically crediting testimony that prior litigation had been resolved and finding no evidence that Womer or her agents were aware that the 2018 action remained technically active. The absence of any filings in Ceglio’s lawsuit for several years before the decedent’s death supported the conclusion that reasonable diligence would not have uncovered the claim.
Key Takeaways
- A personal representative’s duty to identify “reasonably ascertainable” creditors requires diligent search but does not require exhaustive investigation of all possible claims.
- A dormant lawsuit with no filings for several years may not make the plaintiff a “reasonably ascertainable” creditor, particularly when informants indicate the dispute was resolved.
- The probate court’s determination of whether a creditor is “reasonably ascertainable” is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to credibility findings.
- Publication notice satisfies due process for creditors who are not reasonably ascertainable through diligent search.
- A creditor who fails to monitor their own claim and does not learn of the debtor’s death until months after the notice period expires bears the risk of that inattention.
Why It Matters
This decision provides practical guidance for personal representatives conducting creditor searches. The standard is “reasonable diligence” — not perfection. A personal representative who reviews records, consults with those familiar with the decedent’s affairs, and searches public records has met the constitutional minimum even if an actual creditor exists but is not discovered. For creditors, the decision underscores the importance of actively maintaining claims and monitoring debtors: a dormant lawsuit with no activity for years may be treated as resolved for purposes of creditor-notice requirements, leaving the creditor with no recourse if they fail to file a timely claim.