Coukos-Semmel v. Mitchell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coukos-Semmel v. Mitchell

947 So. 2d 1290, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1590, 2007 WL 428991

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 2007

DocketNo. 2D06-2327

StatusPublished

This text of 947 So. 2d 1290 (Coukos-Semmel v. Mitchell) 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

Coukos-Semmel v. Mitchell, 947 So. 2d 1290, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1590, 2007 WL 428991 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Appellants, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Harry L. Coukos, challenge the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of their petition for revocation of probate, in which they challenged Mr. Coukos’ 2004 will. Because Appellants lacked standing to challenge the will, we affirm. See Wehrheim v. Golden Pond Assisted Living Facility, 905 So.2d 1002, 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[A] petitioner may not be an interested person in revocation and removal proceedings if previous and presumptively valid wills have been discovered that, similar to the current will, do not include the petitioner as a beneficiary of the estate.”). However, we do so without [1291]*1291prejudice to any right Appellants may have to challenge the trust agreement.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

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

DAVIS, Judge.

Appellants, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Harry L. Coukos, challenge the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of their petition for revocation of probate, in which they challenged Mr. Coukos’ 2004 will. Because Appellants lacked standing to challenge the will, we affirm. See Wehrheim v. Golden Pond Assisted Living Facility, 905 So.2d 1002, 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[A] petitioner may not be an interested person in revocation and removal proceedings if previous and presumptively valid wills have been discovered that, similar to the current will, do not include the petitioner as a beneficiary of the estate.”). However, we do so without [1291]*1291prejudice to any right Appellants may have to challenge the trust agreement.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

947 So. 2d 1290, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1590, 2007 WL 428991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coukos-semmel-v-mitchell-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack