Dow v. Robards

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dow v. Robards

826 So. 2d 345, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5686, 2002 WL 806920

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-2501

StatusPublished

This text of 826 So. 2d 345 (Dow v. Robards) 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

Dow v. Robards, 826 So. 2d 345, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5686, 2002 WL 806920 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order which approves an accounting and certain expenditures by Sylvia Robards as personal representative of the estate of Mable Dow, and as successor trustee of a trust established by Mable Dow. We find no error by the trial court in the interpretation of the will, the trust agreement and amendments thereto, and the applicable statutes.

Both sides agree that there is a technical error in paragraph six of the trial court’s order. The parties agree that the percentage allocations set forth in paragraph six were intended to apply to expenditures made after the date of the trial court’s order, but do not apply to expenditures already made. With that exception, the order now under review is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of order.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order which approves an accounting and certain expenditures by Sylvia Robards as personal representative of the estate of Mable Dow, and as successor trustee of a trust established by Mable Dow. We find no error by the trial court in the interpretation of the will, the trust agreement and amendments thereto, and the applicable statutes.

Both sides agree that there is a technical error in paragraph six of the trial court’s order. The parties agree that the percentage allocations set forth in paragraph six were intended to apply to expenditures made after the date of the trial court’s order, but do not apply to expenditures already made. With that exception, the order now under review is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

826 So. 2d 345, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5686, 2002 WL 806920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dow-v-robards-fladistctapp-2002.