Bernstein v. Common Markets, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bernstein v. Common Markets, Inc.

317 So. 2d 124, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14140

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 1975

DocketNo. 75-7

StatusPublished

This text of 317 So. 2d 124 (Bernstein v. Common Markets, Inc.) 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

Bernstein v. Common Markets, Inc., 317 So. 2d 124, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14140 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, we are called upon to review the correctness of an order confirming a sheriff’s sale of a life estate in a spendthrift trust.

The appellant attacks the order of confirmation upon two grounds: First, that it was error for the trial judge to hold that a beneficiary’s life estate interest in the income from a spendthrift trust was subject to execution and, second, that the price bid at the execution sale was grossly inadequate and, therefore, the trial judge erred in confirming the sale.

As to the first error urged [in ordering the beneficial interest to be sold], we find that the appellant cannot now raise this.issue as it was the subject matter of a prior appeal which was determined adverse to the appellant because of an untimely appeal. See: Bernstein v. Common Markets, Inc., Fla.App.1974, 305 So.2d 321.¹

Turning to the second error urged [the alleged inadequacy of the bid price], in view of the fact that the beneficiary was 83 years ofage at the time of the sale and in poor health, the appellant has not [125]*125carried the burden of showing that the trial judge abused his discretion in confirming the sale, which was attacked upon this ground. First State Bank of Miami v. Common Markets, Inc., Fla.App.1974, 301 So.2d 833; Credit Industrial Company v. Re-Mark Chemical Co., Inc., Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 540; King v. Brown, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 187; In Re Estate of Rose, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 226.

Therefore, the order under review is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, we are called upon to review the correctness of an order confirming a sheriff’s sale of a life estate in a spendthrift trust.

The appellant attacks the order of confirmation upon two grounds: First, that it was error for the trial judge to hold that a beneficiary’s life estate interest in the income from a spendthrift trust was subject to execution and, second, that the price bid at the execution sale was grossly inadequate and, therefore, the trial judge erred in confirming the sale.

As to the first error urged [in ordering the beneficial interest to be sold], we find that the appellant cannot now raise this.issue as it was the subject matter of a prior appeal which was determined adverse to the appellant because of an untimely appeal. See: Bernstein v. Common Markets, Inc., Fla.App.1974, 305 So.2d 321.¹

Turning to the second error urged [the alleged inadequacy of the bid price], in view of the fact that the beneficiary was 83 years ofage at the time of the sale and in poor health, the appellant has not [125]*125carried the burden of showing that the trial judge abused his discretion in confirming the sale, which was attacked upon this ground. First State Bank of Miami v. Common Markets, Inc., Fla.App.1974, 301 So.2d 833; Credit Industrial Company v. Re-Mark Chemical Co., Inc., Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 540; King v. Brown, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 187; In Re Estate of Rose, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 226.

Therefore, the order under review is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 So. 2d 124, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernstein-v-common-markets-inc-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack