Glens Falls Insurance v. Edgerly

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glens Falls Insurance v. Edgerly

165 So. 2d 240, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4387

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 1964

DocketNo. F-36

StatusPublished

This text of 165 So. 2d 240 (Glens Falls Insurance v. Edgerly) 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

Glens Falls Insurance v. Edgerly, 165 So. 2d 240, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4387 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This cause was orally argued before the Court and the briefs and record on appeal have been read and given full consideration. In view of the conflicting evidence in the record, and the conflicting inferences which may be reasonably drawn therefrom, we are not persuaded that the chancellor erred as a matter of law in holding that the insured’s daughter was not a resident of the insured’s household at the critical period of time involved herein within the meaning and intent of the insurance policy which forms the basis of this action. Our opinion in this regard is largely controlled by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Florence M. Miclder guardianship case,¹ which affirmed the decision rendered by this Court in the same case.² In each of these decisions it was held that F.S. Section 744.11, F.S.A., which fixes the venue for the institution of guardianship proceedings and which provides that venue shall be in the county where “the incompetent resides,” the quoted language shall be construed to mean the legal residence or domicile of the incompetent, and not the place where the incompetent may be living or residing.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the decree hereby appealed is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur. McNATT, Associate Judge, specially concurs.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause was orally argued before the Court and the briefs and record on appeal have been read and given full consideration. In view of the conflicting evidence in the record, and the conflicting inferences which may be reasonably drawn therefrom, we are not persuaded that the chancellor erred as a matter of law in holding that the insured’s daughter was not a resident of the insured’s household at the critical period of time involved herein within the meaning and intent of the insurance policy which forms the basis of this action. Our opinion in this regard is largely controlled by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Florence M. Miclder guardianship case,¹ which affirmed the decision rendered by this Court in the same case.² In each of these decisions it was held that F.S. Section 744.11, F.S.A., which fixes the venue for the institution of guardianship proceedings and which provides that venue shall be in the county where “the incompetent resides,” the quoted language shall be construed to mean the legal residence or domicile of the incompetent, and not the place where the incompetent may be living or residing.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the decree hereby appealed is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur. McNATT, Associate Judge, specially concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 2d 240, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glens-falls-insurance-v-edgerly-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack