In re Estate of DeMarchis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re Estate of DeMarchis

521 So. 2d 381, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 653, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 979, 1988 WL 20596

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1496

StatusPublished

This text of 521 So. 2d 381 (In re Estate of DeMarchis) 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 DeMarchis, 521 So. 2d 381, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 653, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 979, 1988 WL 20596 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

The personal representative of the estate of the decedent appeals from an order admitting a will to probate. He contends: (1) the instrument was not a will at all but, at best, evidence of an intention to make a will in the future; (2) the instrument and attesting witness oaths were not properly executed; and (3) the will is void due to the [382]*382divorce of the decedent from the beneficiary after execution of the instrument.

We find no merit in the first two contentions. We do not reach the third because there is nothing in the record indicating that the trial court has yet considered it. It may be raised, if necessary, in a subsequent appeal.

WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

MILLS, Judge.

The personal representative of the estate of the decedent appeals from an order admitting a will to probate. He contends: (1) the instrument was not a will at all but, at best, evidence of an intention to make a will in the future; (2) the instrument and attesting witness oaths were not properly executed; and (3) the will is void due to the [382]*382divorce of the decedent from the beneficiary after execution of the instrument.

We find no merit in the first two contentions. We do not reach the third because there is nothing in the record indicating that the trial court has yet considered it. It may be raised, if necessary, in a subsequent appeal.

WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 So. 2d 381, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 653, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 979, 1988 WL 20596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-demarchis-fladistctapp-1988.