Florida law provides that if a later-discovered last will and testament of the decedent is found, an interested person may petition to revoke the probate of the earlier proceedings and admit the later will to probate. However, as a general rule, this process must occur before the estate is fully administered, as no later will or codicil may be offered after an estate has been completely closed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Florida Statute \u00a7 733.208 states:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On the discovery of a later will or codicil, any interested person may petition to revoke the probate of the earlier will or to probate the later will or codicil. No will or codicil may be offered after the testate or intestate estate has been completely administered and the personal representative discharged. <\/em>(emphasis added)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Florida Statute \u00a7 733.109 (1) states.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) A proceeding to revoke the probate of a will shall be brought in the court having jurisdiction over the administration. Any interested person, including a beneficiary under a prior will, unless barred under s. 733.212 or s. 733.2123, may commence the proceeding before final discharge of the personal representative. <\/em>(emphasis added)<\/p>\n\n\n\n A later will, properly executed, prevails over all previous wills. On the discovery of a later will or codicil that expressly or impliedly revokes the earlier probated will in whole or in part, any interested person may offer the later will for probate, as long as the later will is offered while the administration of the pending will is pending or proceeding; no later will may be offered after the closing of the estate. While it is possible to reopen the administration of an estate if further administration is found to be necessary, further administration will not be ordered on the discovery of a later will. This principle applies to both testate and intestate estates, as confirmed by In re Estate of Killinger<\/em>, 448 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).<\/p>\n\n\n\n An exception to this rule may exist in cases involving wrongful acts. For instance, in Dean v. Bentley<\/em>, 848 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th<\/sup> DCA 2003) the court acknowledged that fraud could justify reopening an estate even after discharge. Therefore, while Fla. Stat. \u00a7 733.208 generally governs the time frame for reopening of probate for a later-discovered will, specific circumstances like fraud may allow for exceptions. The Dean<\/em> court stated: \u201cAlthough sections 733.208 and 733.109, Florida Statutes, provide that a petition for revocation of probate should be filed before discharge, fraud is recognized as justification for reopening an estate, even after an order for discharge has been entered. Liechty v. Hall<\/em>, 687 So. 2d 64, 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Padgett v. Padgett<\/em>, 318 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Also, Rule 1.540(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure<\/em> provides that “[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . . fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.” The Florida Supreme Court defines “fraud on the court” as: [The] prevention of an unsuccessful party [from] presenting his case, by fraud or deception practiced by his adversary; keeping the opponent away from the court; falsely promising a compromise; ignorance of the adversary about the existence of the suit or the acts of the plaintiff; fraudulent representation of a party without his consent and connivance in his defeat; and so on.\u201d DeClaire v. Yohanan<\/em>, 453 So. 2d 375, 377 (Fla. 1984), superseded by rule on other grounds<\/em>; Lefler v. Lefler<\/em>, 776 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, it appears that a Court cannot administer the later will after the prior probate matter is completed, absent the intentional activity by the proponent to hide the later will in the probate case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n