Lezcano v. Estate of Hidalgo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lezcano v. Estate of Hidalgo

88 So. 3d 306, 2012 WL 1414826, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6388

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 2012

DocketNo. 3D11-714

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 So. 3d 306 (Lezcano v. Estate of Hidalgo) 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

Lezcano v. Estate of Hidalgo, 88 So. 3d 306, 2012 WL 1414826, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6388 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEPHERD, J.

Mercedes Lezcano appeals an order of the probate court, removing her as personal representative of the estate and co-trustee of the trust of her deceased brother pursuant to a generalized order instructing her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for a purported failure, in her capacity as personal representative, to comply with “[certain] orders [of the court]” and “failing to place all income and assets into [a] restricted depository” and related alleged misdeeds. “Because [the] removals were] ordered without notice or an evidentiary hearing, ‘the ruling did not meet even the most rudimentary requirements of due process.’ ” Zulon v. Peckins, 81 So.3d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (quoting LoCascio v. Estate of LoCascio, 78 So.3d 573, 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)). We reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate Lezcano as personal representative of the estate and co-trustee of the trust, and discharge Mr. Mendez as curator of the estate.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

SHEPHERD, J.

Mercedes Lezcano appeals an order of the probate court, removing her as personal representative of the estate and co-trustee of the trust of her deceased brother pursuant to a generalized order instructing her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for a purported failure, in her capacity as personal representative, to comply with “[certain] orders [of the court]” and “failing to place all income and assets into [a] restricted depository” and related alleged misdeeds. “Because [the] removals were] ordered without notice or an evidentiary hearing, ‘the ruling did not meet even the most rudimentary requirements of due process.’ ” Zulon v. Peckins, 81 So.3d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (quoting LoCascio v. Estate of LoCascio, 78 So.3d 573, 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)). We reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate Lezcano as personal representative of the estate and co-trustee of the trust, and discharge Mr. Mendez as curator of the estate.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 3d 306, 2012 WL 1414826, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lezcano-v-estate-of-hidalgo-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack