Fishman v. Easton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fishman v. Easton

475 So. 2d 1019, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2205, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15973

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1985

Docket85-1372

StatusPublished

This text of 475 So. 2d 1019 (Fishman v. Easton) 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

Fishman v. Easton, 475 So. 2d 1019, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2205, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15973 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and quash the order of abatement entered by the trial court. In our view the petitioners are entitled to proceed against the trustee-owner, respondent herein, in this tort action without necessarily joining the individual beneficiaries of the trust for whom the trustee holds title. Cf. Grammer v. Roman, 174 So.2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). We also believe the trial court erred in refusing to permit discovery of the identity of the beneficiaries. In this instance, by refusing to allow the petitioners to discover the identity of the beneficiaries from the trustee, and yet barring prosecution of the action without joinder of those beneficiaries, the trial court placed the petitioners in an impossible situation.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and quash the order of abatement entered by the trial court. In our view the petitioners are entitled to proceed against the trustee-owner, respondent herein, in this tort action without necessarily joining the individual beneficiaries of the trust for whom the trustee holds title. Cf. Grammer v. Roman, 174 So.2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). We also believe the trial court erred in refusing to permit discovery of the identity of the beneficiaries. In this instance, by refusing to allow the petitioners to discover the identity of the beneficiaries from the trustee, and yet barring prosecution of the action without joinder of those beneficiaries, the trial court placed the petitioners in an impossible situation.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 So. 2d 1019, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2205, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fishman-v-easton-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack