Born and raised in Miami, Florida with a background in Finance, Mr. Glasko began his practice in 1999 as a Family litigator before joining Edward Golden in 2003 to concentrate on the Probate Guardianship and Trust litigation practice. Mr. Glasko has argued before the Florida Supreme Court, as well as 3rd and 4th District Courts of Appeal. Mr. Glasko has traveled to Cuba to represent Cuban National Beneficiaries of Florida estates. In addition to a fervent and passionate courtroom presence, Mr. Glasko is extremely sensitive to the personal needs of his clients. Probate and guardianship litigation are unique areas of practice where family members are often at odds. While remaining focused on the legal and strategic aspects of a case, Mr. Glasko believes that it is important to quickly and sensitively address the personal concerns of clients in these unfamiliar circumstances. The lawyer is often the buffer between the client and the opponent and this relationship requires trust and communication.
Jones v. Golden, 176 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 2015). Mr. Glasko prevailed in the Florida Supreme Court in this appeal to defend his previous 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). Mr. Glasko 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). Mr. Glasko 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.
