In re Estate of Aaronson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re Estate of Aaronson

578 So. 2d 845, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3909, 1991 WL 65947

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1496

StatusPublished

This text of 578 So. 2d 845 (In re Estate of Aaronson) 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

In re Estate of Aaronson, 578 So. 2d 845, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3909, 1991 WL 65947 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court held that appellant’s claim in the estate of her deceased husband had been waived by a 1961 written agreement between the parties. In one of two issues raised on appeal the appellant claims that the waiver was conditioned upon the reciprocal disclosure of assets by the parties. The evidence reflects that while there was some reciprocal disclosure, the agreement contained no provision conditioning the parties’ mutual waiver upon disclosure. See Coleman v. Estate of Coleman, 439 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Hence, we find no error by the trial court in resolving this issue against the appellant. Because we find no error on this issue we need not decide what effect such a written condition and its breach would have on the waiver provisions of the agreement.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.

ANSTEAD, POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court held that appellant’s claim in the estate of her deceased husband had been waived by a 1961 written agreement between the parties. In one of two issues raised on appeal the appellant claims that the waiver was conditioned upon the reciprocal disclosure of assets by the parties. The evidence reflects that while there was some reciprocal disclosure, the agreement contained no provision conditioning the parties’ mutual waiver upon disclosure. See Coleman v. Estate of Coleman, 439 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Hence, we find no error by the trial court in resolving this issue against the appellant. Because we find no error on this issue we need not decide what effect such a written condition and its breach would have on the waiver provisions of the agreement.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.

ANSTEAD, POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 So. 2d 845, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3909, 1991 WL 65947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-aaronson-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack