Estates of Schutt v. Spielman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Estates of Schutt v. Spielman

659 So. 2d 363, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7105, 1995 WL 363353

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 20, 1995

DocketNo. 95-77

StatusPublished

This text of 659 So. 2d 363 (Estates of Schutt v. Spielman) 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

Estates of Schutt v. Spielman, 659 So. 2d 363, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7105, 1995 WL 363353 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

The estates of William and Margaret Schutt appeal the trial court’s denial of their motions to dismiss the personal injury lawsuit filed against them by Robert and Hazel Spielman, claiming that the ancillary letters of administration issued to a court-appointed personal representative were invalid, and thus the Spielmans cannot proceed. We affirm.

The trial court in this tort action correctly declined to consider factual issues previously resolved by another circuit court judge in probate proceedings. There is nothing on the face of the ancillary letters of administration that renders them invalid in regard to venue. § 733.101 (l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993); In re Estate of Bernard, 183 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); In re Estate of Klipple, 101 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); 31 Am.Jur.2d Executors and Administrators § 510 (1989). If there are any perceived problems with the appointment of the personal representative, the Schutts’ estates may challenge the same pursuant to section 733.301(5), Florida Statutes (1993).

AFFIRMED.

MINER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

The estates of William and Margaret Schutt appeal the trial court’s denial of their motions to dismiss the personal injury lawsuit filed against them by Robert and Hazel Spielman, claiming that the ancillary letters of administration issued to a court-appointed personal representative were invalid, and thus the Spielmans cannot proceed. We affirm.

The trial court in this tort action correctly declined to consider factual issues previously resolved by another circuit court judge in probate proceedings. There is nothing on the face of the ancillary letters of administration that renders them invalid in regard to venue. § 733.101 (l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993); In re Estate of Bernard, 183 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); In re Estate of Klipple, 101 So.2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); 31 Am.Jur.2d Executors and Administrators § 510 (1989). If there are any perceived problems with the appointment of the personal representative, the Schutts’ estates may challenge the same pursuant to section 733.301(5), Florida Statutes (1993).

AFFIRMED.

MINER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

659 So. 2d 363, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7105, 1995 WL 363353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estates-of-schutt-v-spielman-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack