Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy

61 So. 3d 506, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8058, 2011 WL 2135597

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2011

DocketNo. 4D11-1203

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 So. 3d 506 (Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy) 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

Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy, 61 So. 3d 506, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8058, 2011 WL 2135597 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied the pro se petition for formal administration of the estate of the appellant’s wife, because the appellant was not represented by an attorney. We reverse, because the petition states that the appellant is his wife’s sole beneficiary. Thus, he is entitled to file the petition without the necessity of an attorney. See Fla. Prob. R. 5.030(a) (“Every guardian and every personal representative, unless the personal representative remains the sole interested person, shall be represented by an attorney admitted to practice in Florida.”) (emphasis added); Benedetto v. Columbia Park Healthcare Sys., 922 So.2d 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the petition for administration.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied the pro se petition for formal administration of the estate of the appellant’s wife, because the appellant was not represented by an attorney. We reverse, because the petition states that the appellant is his wife’s sole beneficiary. Thus, he is entitled to file the petition without the necessity of an attorney. See Fla. Prob. R. 5.030(a) (“Every guardian and every personal representative, unless the personal representative remains the sole interested person, shall be represented by an attorney admitted to practice in Florida.”) (emphasis added); Benedetto v. Columbia Park Healthcare Sys., 922 So.2d 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the petition for administration.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 3d 506, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8058, 2011 WL 2135597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lituchy-v-estate-of-lituchy-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack