Danches v. Danches

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Danches v. Danches

503 So. 2d 461, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 737, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7185

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 10, 1987·No. No. 86-1611·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We hold that the trial court’s erroneous evidentiary rulings as to the applicability of the dead man’s statute, § 90.602, Florida Statutes (1985), and the hearsay rule, § 90.803(3), Florida Statutes (1985), precluded appellant from proving her contention that she was a pretermitted spouse under the terms of her deceased husband’s will. See Small v. Shure, 94 So.2d 371 (Fla.1957); Ritter v. Shamas, 452 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sessions v. Summers, 177 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Bordacs v. Kimmel, 139 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We hold that the trial court’s erroneous evidentiary rulings as to the applicability of the dead man’s statute, § 90.602, Florida Statutes (1985), and the hearsay rule, § 90.803(3), Florida Statutes (1985), precluded appellant from proving her contention that she was a pretermitted spouse under the terms of her deceased husband’s will. See Small v. Shure, 94 So.2d 371 (Fla.1957); Ritter v. Shamas, 452 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sessions v. Summers, 177 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Bordacs v. Kimmel, 139 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Danches v. Danches, 503 So. 2d 461, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 737, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7185 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

503 So. 2d 461 (Danches v. Danches) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related