Hurtak v. Estate of Pavlides

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hurtak v. Estate of Pavlides

208 So. 2d 131

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1968

DocketNo. 67-382

StatusPublished

This text of 208 So. 2d 131 (Hurtak v. Estate of Pavlides) 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

Hurtak v. Estate of Pavlides, 208 So. 2d 131 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant urges error upon the denial of his petition for the removal of the administrator in the estate of Nicholas Pavlides, deceased. The ground of the petition was an alleged procedural irregularity in the appointment of the administrator. The trial judge found that appellant, as petitioner, failed to establish a valid reason for the removal. This order arrives in the appellate court with a presumption of correctness. Appellant and appellee have waived oral argument, and we have examined the briefs and the record. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision of the trial judge is incorrect as a matter of law. The order of the trial judge is affirmed. Cf. Condit v. Newell, 149 Fla. 446, 6 So.2d 3 (1942).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant urges error upon the denial of his petition for the removal of the administrator in the estate of Nicholas Pavlides, deceased. The ground of the petition was an alleged procedural irregularity in the appointment of the administrator. The trial judge found that appellant, as petitioner, failed to establish a valid reason for the removal. This order arrives in the appellate court with a presumption of correctness. Appellant and appellee have waived oral argument, and we have examined the briefs and the record. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision of the trial judge is incorrect as a matter of law. The order of the trial judge is affirmed. Cf. Condit v. Newell, 149 Fla. 446, 6 So.2d 3 (1942).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 So. 2d 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurtak-v-estate-of-pavlides-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack