Magee v. Magee

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Magee v. Magee

902 So. 2d 909, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8312, 2005 WL 1307746

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 2005

DocketNo. 2D04-3294

StatusPublished

This text of 902 So. 2d 909 (Magee v. Magee) 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

Magee v. Magee, 902 So. 2d 909, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8312, 2005 WL 1307746 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Judith Magee, the beneficiary of a revocable trust created by her now-deceased father, appeals the order denying her objections to the elective share claimed by [910]*910Edna Magee, the surviving spouse. As explained in Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), an order determining the surviving spouse’s entitlement to an elective share is a nonfinal and nonappealable order. 'In this case, the nonappealable nature of the order is further demonstrated by the circuit court’s ruling that one of the claims, regarding whether the elective share statute was an unconstitutional impairment of contracts, was premature because it was too soon to tell whether trust assets would be needed to satisfy the elective share. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal:

Dismissed.

WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

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

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Judith Magee, the beneficiary of a revocable trust created by her now-deceased father, appeals the order denying her objections to the elective share claimed by [910]*910Edna Magee, the surviving spouse. As explained in Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), an order determining the surviving spouse’s entitlement to an elective share is a nonfinal and nonappealable order. 'In this case, the nonappealable nature of the order is further demonstrated by the circuit court’s ruling that one of the claims, regarding whether the elective share statute was an unconstitutional impairment of contracts, was premature because it was too soon to tell whether trust assets would be needed to satisfy the elective share. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal:

Dismissed.

WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

902 So. 2d 909, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8312, 2005 WL 1307746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magee-v-magee-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack