Divella v. Divella

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Divella v. Divella

626 So. 2d 1113, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11786, 1993 WL 482346

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 23, 1993

DocketNo. 93-594

StatusPublished

This text of 626 So. 2d 1113 (Divella v. Divella) 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

Divella v. Divella, 626 So. 2d 1113, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11786, 1993 WL 482346 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellees, Roger Divella and Diana Hoffman, failed to overcome the presumption of undue influence. See In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So.2d 697 (Fla.1971). As a result, the account transfer which was procured by the appellees is null and void. Gorman v. Harrison, 559 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

The trial court correctly ordered each party to pay their own attorney’s fees. The petition filed by Roger Divella and Diana Hoffman was not a claim against Robert Divella, as the personal representative of the estate. The litigation was in no way for the benefit of the estate. Rather it was a dispute between the decedent’s three children over the ownership of the proceeds of the AmeriFirst account.

Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellees, Roger Divella and Diana Hoffman, failed to overcome the presumption of undue influence. See In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So.2d 697 (Fla.1971). As a result, the account transfer which was procured by the appellees is null and void. Gorman v. Harrison, 559 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

The trial court correctly ordered each party to pay their own attorney’s fees. The petition filed by Roger Divella and Diana Hoffman was not a claim against Robert Divella, as the personal representative of the estate. The litigation was in no way for the benefit of the estate. Rather it was a dispute between the decedent’s three children over the ownership of the proceeds of the AmeriFirst account.

Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 So. 2d 1113, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11786, 1993 WL 482346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/divella-v-divella-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack