Kot v. Holmberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kot v. Holmberg

869 So. 2d 773, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5028, 2004 WL 784616

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-1142

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 869 So. 2d 773 (Kot v. Holmberg) 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

Kot v. Holmberg, 869 So. 2d 773, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5028, 2004 WL 784616 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In determining the petition for incapacity of Rosalie J. Klein, the probate court heard testimony regarding the execution of an amendment to Ms. Klein’s revocable trust. Although the trust was not before the court, in its order determining incapacity the court adjudged “that the 1994 trust agreement continues in full force and effect and the assets of the ward shall be continued to be controlled by the then nominated guardian Bruni Holmberg.” The validity of the trust was never before the court for determination, as appellee concedes and the court acknowledged in other parts of the order. Therefore, we affirm the order, except as to the foregoing statement, which on remand we direct be stricken from the order.

WARNER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In determining the petition for incapacity of Rosalie J. Klein, the probate court heard testimony regarding the execution of an amendment to Ms. Klein’s revocable trust. Although the trust was not before the court, in its order determining incapacity the court adjudged “that the 1994 trust agreement continues in full force and effect and the assets of the ward shall be continued to be controlled by the then nominated guardian Bruni Holmberg.” The validity of the trust was never before the court for determination, as appellee concedes and the court acknowledged in other parts of the order. Therefore, we affirm the order, except as to the foregoing statement, which on remand we direct be stricken from the order.

WARNER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

869 So. 2d 773, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 5028, 2004 WL 784616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kot-v-holmberg-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack