Jose v. Jose

164 So. 2d 888, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4343
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 3, 1964
DocketNo. 4440
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 So. 2d 888 (Jose v. Jose) 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
Jose v. Jose, 164 So. 2d 888, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4343 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

WHITE, Judge.

Oscar A. Jose died testate in Indiana and ancillary proceedings were necessary in Florida. The primary executors named in the will were not legally qualified to serve in Florida but the alternate executors possessed the general qualifications for appointment under the statutes of this state.1

The County Judge’s Court for Palm Beach County admitted the will to probate in Florida and issued ancillary letters testamentary jointly to Oscar A. Jose, Jr., and Catherine Frances Childs, the children of the decedent who were named in the will2 as alternate personal representatives. From this order the widow, Jean W. Jose, appeals. Appellant takes the position that since the primary domiciliary executors are not qualified to serve in Florida, the Florida court erred in appointing the named alternate executors to administer the ancillary [890]*890proceedings because, arguendo, section 734.-31(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.3 read in conjunction with section 732.44, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.4 gives the surviving spouse first entitlement to letters. The argument is plausible but not tenable.

The testator, himself, provided for alternate personal representatives should his primary executors not qualify. Such primary domiciliary executors could not qualify for the ancillary proceedings in Florida, and we hold that the County Judge acted correctly in issuing letters testamentary to the qualified alternate executors expressly designated by the testator.

The law favors the appointment of successor or alternate personal representatives named in wills and unless plainly prohibited by law the courts will honor the wishes of the testator. See 33 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators § 25; 21 Am.Jur., Executors and Administrators, § 54.

The fact that the named alternate executors are not also the domiciliary executors does not foreclose their presumptive right to appointment in the ancillary proceedings where the domiciliary executors are ineligible to serve in the ancillary jurisdiction; and this is so even though the testator’s surviving spouse may be ready, able and willing to serve. In other words, section 732.44(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. was not intended to require appointment of a substitute personal representative contrary to the expressed intent of the testator who affirmatively nominated competent eligible alternate executors.

Affirmed.

SHANNON, Acting C. J., and EL-MORE, FRANK H., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Related

Pontrello v. Estate of Kepler
528 So. 2d 441 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 So. 2d 888, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-v-jose-fladistctapp-1964.