Preview
Electronically Filed 07/09/2013 03:30:25 PM ET
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
JACKIE ELLINGSON, individually,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFREY KRENTZ, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Dolores M.
Hogg, CASE NO. 13-1528-CA
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT,
JEFFREY KRENTZ
Plaintiff, JACKIE ELLINGSON (the “Plaintiff’), by and through her undersigned
counsel, hereby serves her Reply to the Affirmative Defenses of Defendant, JEFFREY KRENTZ
(the “Defendant”).
REPLIES TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Reply to First Affirmative Defense
The First Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the intestacy of DOLORES
M. HOGG (the “Decedent”), the existence of any Will or proof of any Will, or any previous
litigation related to the Will of the Decedent is irrelevant to the present case. The Florida
Statutes pertaining to the payment of creditors’ claims (Sections 733.701 through 733.710, F.S.)
apply to both testate and intestate estates.
Reply to Second Affirmative Defense
The Second Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the Plaintiff fully expected
to be reimbursed by the estate of the Decedent for the incurred expenses.Reply to Third Affirmative Defense
The Third Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the order entered by the
Honorable Elizabeth V. Krier granted the Plaintiff the authority to dispose of the Decedent’s
remains. It did not prevent the Plaintiff from seeking reimbursement from the estate of the
Decedent for the incurred expenses, nor did the Court seek to determine who ultimately would be
responsible for funeral expenses.
Reply to Fourth Affirmative Defense
The Fourth Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, pursuant to the previously
referenced order entered by the Honorable Elizabeth V. Krier, the Plaintiff had the authority to
make funeral arrangements without the consent of the nieces and nephew of the Decedent.
Furthermore, Section 497.005, F.S., is inapplicable in the above-referenced matter.
Reply to Fifth Affirmative Defense
The Fifth Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, pursuant to the previously
referenced order entered by the Honorable Elizabeth V. Krier, the Plaintiff had the authority to
make funeral arrangements without the consent of the Personal Representative of the Decedent’s
estate (who was not appointed until almost a year after the Decedent’s death). Furthermore,
Section 497.005, F.S., is inapplicable in the above-referenced matter.
Reply to Sixth Affirmative Defense
The Sixth Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the expenses incurred by the
Plaintiff were reasonable, necessary and for the benefit of the Decedent’s estate. As previously
noted, the consent of the nieces and nephew of the Decedent or of the Personal Representative of
the Decedent’s estate were not necessary.Reply to Seventh Affirmative Defense
The Seventh Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the Plaintiff is not making
a claim for funeral expenses in excess of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000). Furthermore, the
Defendant completely misinterprets the provisions of Section 733.707, Florida Statutes. Section
733.707, Florida Statutes, entitled “Order of payment of expenses and obligations,” deals only
with the priority of the payment of creditors and in no way limits the amount that can be
expended on funeral expenses.
Reply to Eighth Affirmative Defense
The Eighth Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the Decedent placed no
restrictions on any amounts received by the Plaintiff upon the Decedent’s death. There is no
legal obligation that the Plaintiff apply any amounts which the Plaintiff received upon the
Decedent’s death towards the reasonable expenses he incurred on behalf of the Decedent and the
Decedent’s estate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the Defendant any relief based on
the Defendant’s affirmative defenses.
Dated this 8" day of July, 2013.
CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
M. TRAVJS#PAYES, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 0027833
CHRISTOPHER L. ULRICH, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 0033330
P.O. Box 413032
Naples, Florida 34101-3032
Telephone: (239) 262-8311CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via
Electronic Mail and facsimile on the 8" day of July, 2013 to:
Stanley A. Bunner, Jr., Esq.
Rebecca M. Vaccariello, Esq.
Salvatori, Wood & Buckel
Co-Counsel for Defendant
9132 Strada Place
Naples, Florida 34108
Facsimile: 239-649-1706
SAB@swbnaples.com
RMV@swbnaples.com
Wyon F. Wiegratz, Esq.
Remley & Sensenbrenner, S.C.
Co-Counsel for Defendant
219 East Wisconsin Avenue
Neenah, Wisconsin 54956
Facsimile: (920) 725-5814
wwiegratz@remleylaw.com
ao
CC Miihyy —~
M. TRAVIS HAYES, ESQ.
Florida BayN6. 0027883
2952141 1.doc 7/9/2013
Preview
Electronically Filed 07/09/2013 03:30:25 PM ET IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION JACKIE ELLINGSON, individually, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY KRENTZ, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dolores M. Hogg, CASE NO. 13-1528-CA Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT, JEFFREY KRENTZ Plaintiff, JACKIE ELLINGSON (the “Plaintiff’), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby serves her Reply to the Affirmative Defenses of Defendant, JEFFREY KRENTZ (the “Defendant”). REPLIES TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Reply to First Affirmative Defense The First Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the intestacy of DOLORES M. HOGG (the “Decedent”), the existence of any Will or proof of any Will, or any previous litigation related to the Will of the Decedent is irrelevant to the present case. The Florida Statutes pertaining to the payment of creditors’ claims (Sections 733.701 through 733.710, F.S.) apply to both testate and intestate estates. Reply to Second Affirmative Defense The Second Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the Plaintiff fully expected to be reimbursed by the estate of the Decedent for the incurred expenses.Reply to Third Affirmative Defense The Third Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the order entered by the Honorable Elizabeth V. Krier granted the Plaintiff the authority to dispose of the Decedent’s remains. It did not prevent the Plaintiff from seeking reimbursement from the estate of the Decedent for the incurred expenses, nor did the Court seek to determine who ultimately would be responsible for funeral expenses. Reply to Fourth Affirmative Defense The Fourth Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, pursuant to the previously referenced order entered by the Honorable Elizabeth V. Krier, the Plaintiff had the authority to make funeral arrangements without the consent of the nieces and nephew of the Decedent. Furthermore, Section 497.005, F.S., is inapplicable in the above-referenced matter. Reply to Fifth Affirmative Defense The Fifth Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, pursuant to the previously referenced order entered by the Honorable Elizabeth V. Krier, the Plaintiff had the authority to make funeral arrangements without the consent of the Personal Representative of the Decedent’s estate (who was not appointed until almost a year after the Decedent’s death). Furthermore, Section 497.005, F.S., is inapplicable in the above-referenced matter. Reply to Sixth Affirmative Defense The Sixth Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff were reasonable, necessary and for the benefit of the Decedent’s estate. As previously noted, the consent of the nieces and nephew of the Decedent or of the Personal Representative of the Decedent’s estate were not necessary.Reply to Seventh Affirmative Defense The Seventh Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the Plaintiff is not making a claim for funeral expenses in excess of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000). Furthermore, the Defendant completely misinterprets the provisions of Section 733.707, Florida Statutes. Section 733.707, Florida Statutes, entitled “Order of payment of expenses and obligations,” deals only with the priority of the payment of creditors and in no way limits the amount that can be expended on funeral expenses. Reply to Eighth Affirmative Defense The Eighth Affirmative Defense is denied. Replying further, the Decedent placed no restrictions on any amounts received by the Plaintiff upon the Decedent’s death. There is no legal obligation that the Plaintiff apply any amounts which the Plaintiff received upon the Decedent’s death towards the reasonable expenses he incurred on behalf of the Decedent and the Decedent’s estate. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the Defendant any relief based on the Defendant’s affirmative defenses. Dated this 8" day of July, 2013. CUMMINGS & LOCKWOOD LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff M. TRAVJS#PAYES, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 0027833 CHRISTOPHER L. ULRICH, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 0033330 P.O. Box 413032 Naples, Florida 34101-3032 Telephone: (239) 262-8311CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via Electronic Mail and facsimile on the 8" day of July, 2013 to: Stanley A. Bunner, Jr., Esq. Rebecca M. Vaccariello, Esq. Salvatori, Wood & Buckel Co-Counsel for Defendant 9132 Strada Place Naples, Florida 34108 Facsimile: 239-649-1706 SAB@swbnaples.com RMV@swbnaples.com Wyon F. Wiegratz, Esq. Remley & Sensenbrenner, S.C. Co-Counsel for Defendant 219 East Wisconsin Avenue Neenah, Wisconsin 54956 Facsimile: (920) 725-5814 wwiegratz@remleylaw.com ao CC Miihyy —~ M. TRAVIS HAYES, ESQ. Florida BayN6. 0027883 2952141 1.doc 7/9/2013