Mautner v. Loman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mautner v. Loman

353 So. 2d 632

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 20, 1977

DocketNo. 76-1876

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 353 So. 2d 632 (Mautner v. Loman) 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

Mautner v. Loman, 353 So. 2d 632 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Harry Mautner, as personal representative of the Estate of Lawrence L. Garbett, deceased, appeals from an order of the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. Said order granted appellees/claimants’ motion for extension of time to file independent lawsuits against the estate, pursuant to Section 733.705(3), Florida Statutes.

After carefully reviewing the record, briefs and argument of counsel, it is our opinion that the presumption of correctness attached to the Probate Court’s order has not been overcome, as appellant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of the probate judge’s discretion in granting the aforementioned extension of time. See Turner v. Myers, 332 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Harry Mautner, as personal representative of the Estate of Lawrence L. Garbett, deceased, appeals from an order of the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. Said order granted appellees/claimants’ motion for extension of time to file independent lawsuits against the estate, pursuant to Section 733.705(3), Florida Statutes.

After carefully reviewing the record, briefs and argument of counsel, it is our opinion that the presumption of correctness attached to the Probate Court’s order has not been overcome, as appellant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of the probate judge’s discretion in granting the aforementioned extension of time. See Turner v. Myers, 332 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 So. 2d 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mautner-v-loman-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack