Angelus v. Pass

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Angelus v. Pass

847 So. 2d 553, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7021, 2003 WL 21077031

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 2003

DocketNo. 3D02-3343

StatusPublished

This text of 847 So. 2d 553 (Angelus v. Pass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Angelus v. Pass, 847 So. 2d 553, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7021, 2003 WL 21077031 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Angelus appeals an order determining the validity of an “option” for the sale of her deceased mother’s condominium. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.

Ruth Snyder wrote a letter to her nephew-in-law, appellee Henry Pass, informing him that she had written a will. The letter indicated that she had not included her condominium in the will and further stated “If I am still here when I die I would like to sell it to you and Eileen [Ms. Snyder’s niece and Henry’s wife] for $100.” Upon Ms. Snyder’s death, Mr. Pass, treating the letter as an option to purchase the condominium, delivered a check for the $100.00, and made a claim against the estate. Upon appellant’s objection to the claim, appellees instituted the instant action for declaratory judgment and specific performance. The trial court appointed an administrator ad litem to evaluate the claim. In his report, which was adopted by the trial court, the administrator found sufficient consideration for the agreement and determined the letter to be a valid option contract.

We cannot agree with this ruling which in effect sanctions a testamentary transfer of property that does not comply with the statutory requirements of a will. See § 732.502, Fla. Stat. (2001); Williams v. Williams, 149 Fla. 454, 6 So.2d 275 (1942) (“If the intention is manifest that the deed should not take immediate effect, but shall be operative only upon the grantor’s death, it will never take effect at all unless it is executed with such formalities that it may [554]*554be given effect -as a testamentary disposition”) We, therefore, reverse the judgment below and remand for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Angelus appeals an order determining the validity of an “option” for the sale of her deceased mother’s condominium. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.

Ruth Snyder wrote a letter to her nephew-in-law, appellee Henry Pass, informing him that she had written a will. The letter indicated that she had not included her condominium in the will and further stated “If I am still here when I die I would like to sell it to you and Eileen [Ms. Snyder’s niece and Henry’s wife] for $100.” Upon Ms. Snyder’s death, Mr. Pass, treating the letter as an option to purchase the condominium, delivered a check for the $100.00, and made a claim against the estate. Upon appellant’s objection to the claim, appellees instituted the instant action for declaratory judgment and specific performance. The trial court appointed an administrator ad litem to evaluate the claim. In his report, which was adopted by the trial court, the administrator found sufficient consideration for the agreement and determined the letter to be a valid option contract.

We cannot agree with this ruling which in effect sanctions a testamentary transfer of property that does not comply with the statutory requirements of a will. See § 732.502, Fla. Stat. (2001); Williams v. Williams, 149 Fla. 454, 6 So.2d 275 (1942) (“If the intention is manifest that the deed should not take immediate effect, but shall be operative only upon the grantor’s death, it will never take effect at all unless it is executed with such formalities that it may [554]*554be given effect -as a testamentary disposition”) We, therefore, reverse the judgment below and remand for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

847 So. 2d 553, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7021, 2003 WL 21077031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angelus-v-pass-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack