In re Estate of Koll

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re Estate of Koll

445 So. 2d 1147, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12206

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 1984

DocketNo. 82-2444

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 445 So. 2d 1147 (In re Estate of Koll) 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 Koll, 445 So. 2d 1147, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12206 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question presented is whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict in a proceeding to set aside homestead. Recalling that the standard to be applied “[i]n considering the propriety of a directed verdict for a defendant [is that] the trial court is required to evaluate the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and every reasonable intendment deducible from the evidence must be indulged in the plaintiffs favor,” McDaniel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 327 So.2d 893, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), we find that the directed verdict cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order on appeal is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial consistent with the principles set forth in Holden v. Estate of Gardner, 420 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1982).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The question presented is whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict in a proceeding to set aside homestead. Recalling that the standard to be applied “[i]n considering the propriety of a directed verdict for a defendant [is that] the trial court is required to evaluate the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and every reasonable intendment deducible from the evidence must be indulged in the plaintiffs favor,” McDaniel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 327 So.2d 893, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), we find that the directed verdict cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order on appeal is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial consistent with the principles set forth in Holden v. Estate of Gardner, 420 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1982).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 So. 2d 1147, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-koll-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack