Clement v. Mandel

486 So. 2d 690, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 883, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7328
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 15, 1986·No. No. 85-2506·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

' We agree with the appellant that the trial court erred in denying, on the basis of laches, Robert Clement’s petition to be determined the lawful heir of Felix S. Solomon. See Sheffield v. Barry, 153 Fla. 144, 14 So.2d 417 (1943). The judgment denying Clement’s petition is, accordingly, reversed. On remand, we direct the trial court to consider the other issues raised below which it declined to address, including the effect of the Michigan probate court’s vacation of an adoption order entered in 1933. In so doing, the court shall be guided by the principles established in Mott v. First National Bank of St. Petersburg, 98 Fla. 444, 124 So. 36 (1929). See also In re [691] Estate of O’Dea, 29 Cal.App.3d 759, 105 Cal.Rptr. 756 (1973).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

Clement v. Mandel, 486 So. 2d 690, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 883, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7328 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

486 So. 2d 690 (Clement v. Mandel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Faraschuk v. Shaw
29 Cal. App. 3d 759 (California Court of Appeal, 1973)
Sheffield v. Barry
14 So. 2d 417 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1943)
Mott v. First National Bank of St. Petersburg
124 So. 36 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)