Harrigan v. Harrison

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harrigan v. Harrison

423 So. 2d 1024, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28734

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 1982

DocketNo. 82-1016

StatusPublished

This text of 423 So. 2d 1024 (Harrigan v. Harrison) 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

Harrigan v. Harrison, 423 So. 2d 1024, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28734 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order entered in the probate division granting appellee an extension of time for the filing of an independent action pursuant to Section 733.-705(3), Florida Statutes (1981). The motion for extension of time asserted “good cause” but stated no reasons or grounds whatsoever. The motion was not accompanied by any affidavit and the motion was heard solely on the argument of counsel. There was simply no good cause demonstrated in accordance with the dictates of established precedent on this subject. See In re Estate of Wilisch, 384 So.2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and In re Estate of Dezso, 382 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The order extending the time for the filing of appellee’s independent action is thus vacated and set aside.

REVERSED.

LETTS, C.J., and BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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 entered in the probate division granting appellee an extension of time for the filing of an independent action pursuant to Section 733.-705(3), Florida Statutes (1981). The motion for extension of time asserted “good cause” but stated no reasons or grounds whatsoever. The motion was not accompanied by any affidavit and the motion was heard solely on the argument of counsel. There was simply no good cause demonstrated in accordance with the dictates of established precedent on this subject. See In re Estate of Wilisch, 384 So.2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and In re Estate of Dezso, 382 So.2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The order extending the time for the filing of appellee’s independent action is thus vacated and set aside.

REVERSED.

LETTS, C.J., and BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 So. 2d 1024, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrigan-v-harrison-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack