Burton v. Kinchens

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burton v. Kinchens

696 So. 2d 1349, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8419, 1997 WL 410455

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 23, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3566

StatusPublished

This text of 696 So. 2d 1349 (Burton v. Kinchens) 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

Burton v. Kinchens, 696 So. 2d 1349, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8419, 1997 WL 410455 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted the appellee’s motion for a partial summary judgment holding, as a matter of law, that the signed change of beneficiary forms, which deleted the name of the appellee as the trust beneficiary of the in-trust-for account, were ineffectual. In doing so, the trial court relied on appellee’s interpretation of the application of § 655.82, Fla. Stat. (1995). We hold that it was error for the trial court to do so.

Clearly, as appellant points out, there is nothing in section 655.82 that would diminish the effectiveness of the change of beneficiary forms that were signed by the decedent in this case. Accordingly, the partial summary judgment entered below must be reversed.

Naturally, nothing in this opinion, or the appeal from which it emanates, affects or concerns either Count II of the Second Amended Petition or the alternative Undue Influence argument set forth in Count I of the Second Amended Petition.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted the appellee’s motion for a partial summary judgment holding, as a matter of law, that the signed change of beneficiary forms, which deleted the name of the appellee as the trust beneficiary of the in-trust-for account, were ineffectual. In doing so, the trial court relied on appellee’s interpretation of the application of § 655.82, Fla. Stat. (1995). We hold that it was error for the trial court to do so.

Clearly, as appellant points out, there is nothing in section 655.82 that would diminish the effectiveness of the change of beneficiary forms that were signed by the decedent in this case. Accordingly, the partial summary judgment entered below must be reversed.

Naturally, nothing in this opinion, or the appeal from which it emanates, affects or concerns either Count II of the Second Amended Petition or the alternative Undue Influence argument set forth in Count I of the Second Amended Petition.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 So. 2d 1349, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8419, 1997 WL 410455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-kinchens-fladistctapp-1997.