In re the Estate of Young

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re the Estate of Young

525 So. 2d 518, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1308, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2203, 1988 WL 54203

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 525 So. 2d 518 (In re the Estate of Young) 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 the Estate of Young, 525 So. 2d 518, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1308, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2203, 1988 WL 54203 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

UPON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

We deny the successor personal representative's renewed motion to dismiss the appeal. Our authority is Mogul v. Fodi-man, 406 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

We believe the Mogul construction of rule 9.130(a)(4) is correct and applicable here.

We also believe the court in Warren v. Southeastern Leisure Systems, Inc., 522 So.2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) correctly found that rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) did not authorize the appeal in that case, but failed to look at the last sentence of rule 9.130(a)(4).

If rule 9.130(a)(4) is not intended to be construed as Mogul does it, there has been ample opportunity for the Supreme Court to tighten up the language.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.

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