Article on Pope Amendments for Creditors’ Notices

George D. Karibjanian & Jonathan A. Galler recently published an Article entitled, Revisiting Pope and Creditors’ Notices, 30 Prob. & Prop., no. 5, 40 (2016). Provided below is a summary of the Article:

In 1988, an Oklahoma probate code statute concerning creditor’s notices was challenged by a creditor on the grounds that mere publication was insufficient to bar its claim. The creditor argued that it was a “known” creditor and that, accordingly, it should have received “actual” notice of the administration. The case—Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988)—ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court and forever changed the notice requirements for certain creditors. Since then, states have amended their respective probate codes in an effort to comply with the Pope decision (“Pope Amendments”).

Over the past few years, a seemingly innocuous statement added as part of Florida’s Pope Amendments has been the subject of much debate within the Florida judicial system as well as within the Florida probate bar. The issue involves the service of a notice of the probate administration to reasonably ascertainable creditors and whether such creditors are subject to a particular statute of limitations if they have not been served with a copy of such notice. As a result of its decision in Jones v. Golden, 176 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 2015), the Florida Supreme Court has put this issue to rest by stating that reasonably ascertainable creditors who have not been served with a notice of the probate administration are not subject to this particular statute of limitation. This decision affects not only Florida law but also the law of other states with a similar statutory scheme.