Danches v. Danches
This text of 503 So. 2d 461 (Danches v. Danches) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
503 So. 2d 461, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 737, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danches-v-danches-fladistctapp-1987.