Armistead v. Estate of Armistead

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Armistead v. Estate of Armistead

314 So. 2d 216, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13721

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1975

DocketNo. Y-65

StatusPublished

This text of 314 So. 2d 216 (Armistead v. Estate of Armistead) 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

Armistead v. Estate of Armistead, 314 So. 2d 216, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13721 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from two orders of the trial court in the above estate. The orders are final in nature and we treat this as an appeal from final orders. The two orders were both entered on February 13, 1975. The first directed the executor to pay appellant her legacy together with interest accruing since May 6, 1974, and the second denied appellant’s motion for allowance of attorney’s fees for a previous appeal by appellant in this estate. (In Re: Estate of Armistead, Fla.App. (1st), 240 So.2d 830.) Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in fixing the date from which interest would accrue on appellant’s legacy as May 6, 1974, rather than December 8, 1970, and in denying appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees for the aforesaid previous appeal. We have considered the record in the case and the briefs and arguments of counsel and find no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from two orders of the trial court in the above estate. The orders are final in nature and we treat this as an appeal from final orders. The two orders were both entered on February 13, 1975. The first directed the executor to pay appellant her legacy together with interest accruing since May 6, 1974, and the second denied appellant’s motion for allowance of attorney’s fees for a previous appeal by appellant in this estate. (In Re: Estate of Armistead, Fla.App. (1st), 240 So.2d 830.) Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in fixing the date from which interest would accrue on appellant’s legacy as May 6, 1974, rather than December 8, 1970, and in denying appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees for the aforesaid previous appeal. We have considered the record in the case and the briefs and arguments of counsel and find no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 So. 2d 216, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armistead-v-estate-of-armistead-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack