Crankfield v. Yeldon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crankfield v. Yeldon

964 So. 2d 277, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 14546, 2007 WL 2713569

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 19, 2007

DocketNo. 2D06-591

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 964 So. 2d 277 (Crankfield v. Yeldon) 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

Crankfield v. Yeldon, 964 So. 2d 277, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 14546, 2007 WL 2713569 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

STRINGER, Judge.

This appeal stems from a probate matter in which Edwin B. Jagger of Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A. (“Battaglia, Ross”) served as the attorney for the estate of Janiero Crankfield, Sr.’s, deceased minor son (“the Estate”). After the proceeds of the Estate were distributed entirely to the child’s mother, who also served as the personal representative of the Estate, Crankfield filed a petition to set aside the order approving the distribution. Crankfield named several parties as respondents in the petition, including Jagger and Battaglia, Ross. The trial court granted their motion to dismiss the petition, and Crankfield now seeks review of the final judgment which ensued.

Crankfield concedes that his petition failed to seek any relief against Jagger and Battaglia, Ross, and we affirm the final judgment on this basis. We note that the trial court granted Jagger and Battaglia, Ross’s motion to dismiss on two other bases, but we expressly decline to reach those issues. Because further proceedings may ensue between Crankfield and the Estate, we note that this opinion does not constitute law of the case on any issues other than those ruled on herein. See Smith v. City of Fort Myers, 944 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Affirmed.

SALCINES and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

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

STRINGER, Judge.

This appeal stems from a probate matter in which Edwin B. Jagger of Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A. (“Battaglia, Ross”) served as the attorney for the estate of Janiero Crankfield, Sr.’s, deceased minor son (“the Estate”). After the proceeds of the Estate were distributed entirely to the child’s mother, who also served as the personal representative of the Estate, Crankfield filed a petition to set aside the order approving the distribution. Crankfield named several parties as respondents in the petition, including Jagger and Battaglia, Ross. The trial court granted their motion to dismiss the petition, and Crankfield now seeks review of the final judgment which ensued.

Crankfield concedes that his petition failed to seek any relief against Jagger and Battaglia, Ross, and we affirm the final judgment on this basis. We note that the trial court granted Jagger and Battaglia, Ross’s motion to dismiss on two other bases, but we expressly decline to reach those issues. Because further proceedings may ensue between Crankfield and the Estate, we note that this opinion does not constitute law of the case on any issues other than those ruled on herein. See Smith v. City of Fort Myers, 944 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Affirmed.

SALCINES and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

964 So. 2d 277, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 14546, 2007 WL 2713569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crankfield-v-yeldon-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack