until the estate filed its notice of withdrawal of argument A in its answer brief in this court, it persistently maintained that Humana had been served with a notice of administration. Although the estate has finally conceded this factual misstatement, it has ironically still maintained that Humana’s action in failing to timely file its claim cannot be excused. We disagree with the estate’s reasoning in that regard. A final distinction from Gleason is that in Gleason, there was no estoppel claim raised to justify the filing of the late claim, as there was here. We agree with Humana’s argument that the trial court should at least have held an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity of Humana’s estoppel claim. See Campbell v. Estate of Schleusener, 504 So.2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>); Harbour House Properties v. Estate of Stone,
holding evidentiary hearing on defense of judicial estoppel after parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment recognizing the abuse of discretion standard and the requirement of evidentiary support for a finding of estoppel holding that an evidentiary hearing should have been held where the creditors rationale for a late filing hinged on the question of fraud and estoppel holding an evidentiary hearing on the applicability of equitable estoppel holding that where petitioner argued in the state court system that certain statements should be suppressed his federal claim that an evidentiary hearing should have been held to determine who initiated these conversations was adequately presented