Lewin v. Marksbury

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lewin v. Marksbury

374 So. 2d 58, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15634

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 24, 1979

DocketNo. 78-598

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 374 So. 2d 58 (Lewin v. Marksbury) 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

Lewin v. Marksbury, 374 So. 2d 58, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15634 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in an intestate probate proceeding in which the trial court (a) set aside a prior order of distribution on the ground that the personal representative of the estate failed to make a diligent search and inquiry to determine the true heirs of the decedent, (b) made a new order of distribution to the personal representative of the sole heir of the decedent herein, and (c) required the distribu-tees under the prior order of distribution to return the monies received thereunder. Such distributees appeal raising a number of contentions relating to the admissibility of evidence received by the trial court, the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court, and the return of the [59]*59monies ordered by the trial court. We have carefully examined the appellants’ brief and can find no authority cited therein to upset the final judgment. Indeed, it is our duty to affirm based on the following authorities. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); In re Estate of Pennington, 226 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); §§ 731.201(1), 733.903, Fla.Stat. (1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in an intestate probate proceeding in which the trial court (a) set aside a prior order of distribution on the ground that the personal representative of the estate failed to make a diligent search and inquiry to determine the true heirs of the decedent, (b) made a new order of distribution to the personal representative of the sole heir of the decedent herein, and (c) required the distribu-tees under the prior order of distribution to return the monies received thereunder. Such distributees appeal raising a number of contentions relating to the admissibility of evidence received by the trial court, the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court, and the return of the [59]*59monies ordered by the trial court. We have carefully examined the appellants’ brief and can find no authority cited therein to upset the final judgment. Indeed, it is our duty to affirm based on the following authorities. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); In re Estate of Pennington, 226 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); §§ 731.201(1), 733.903, Fla.Stat. (1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 So. 2d 58, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewin-v-marksbury-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack