McClung v. McClung

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McClung v. McClung

804 So. 2d 459, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16278, 2001 WL 1435117

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 2001

DocketNo. 5D00-3286

StatusPublished

This text of 804 So. 2d 459 (McClung v. McClung) 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

McClung v. McClung, 804 So. 2d 459, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16278, 2001 WL 1435117 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Frank A. McClung, Jr. appeals various probate orders, and seeks a writ of prohibition following an order denying as legally insufficient his motion for disqualification of the trial judge.

Based on Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240, 242 (Fla.1986), we deny the application for a writ of prohibition. We affirm the order precluding McClung from filing papers in the probate case in connection [460]*460with his asserted ownership of properties not purported to be devised in the will. Finally, we affirm the orders admitting the will to probate and appointing the personal representative; any error has not been preserved by objection. See Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978); Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, C.J., SHARP, W. and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Frank A. McClung, Jr. appeals various probate orders, and seeks a writ of prohibition following an order denying as legally insufficient his motion for disqualification of the trial judge.

Based on Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240, 242 (Fla.1986), we deny the application for a writ of prohibition. We affirm the order precluding McClung from filing papers in the probate case in connection [460]*460with his asserted ownership of properties not purported to be devised in the will. Finally, we affirm the orders admitting the will to probate and appointing the personal representative; any error has not been preserved by objection. See Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978); Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON, C.J., SHARP, W. and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

804 So. 2d 459, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16278, 2001 WL 1435117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclung-v-mcclung-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack