McMillan v. Rogers

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McMillan v. Rogers

508 So. 2d 570, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1518, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8887

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2885

StatusPublished

This text of 508 So. 2d 570 (McMillan v. Rogers) 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

McMillan v. Rogers, 508 So. 2d 570, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1518, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8887 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s order striking a petition for an interim accounting by the personal representative of an estate. The petition was filed by a beneficiary of a trust which was to receive assets from the estate.

Under the circumstances of this case we need not rule on the issue as to whether the petitioner had standing as an “interested party” under Florida Rules of Probate & Guardianship Procedure 5.150(b) to seek the accounting, an issue as to which there are arguments pro and con. The trial judge indicated that he saw no need for an accounting at that time, and no showing has been made otherwise. Whether or not petitioner had standing, the trial judge evidently would not have ordered an interim accounting, and he was not required to do so. Id. Cf. Fla.R.P. & G.P. 5.345. Thus, we do not conclude that, even if petitioner did have standing, there was reversible error.

Affirmed.

DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

We affirm the trial court’s order striking a petition for an interim accounting by the personal representative of an estate. The petition was filed by a beneficiary of a trust which was to receive assets from the estate.

Under the circumstances of this case we need not rule on the issue as to whether the petitioner had standing as an “interested party” under Florida Rules of Probate & Guardianship Procedure 5.150(b) to seek the accounting, an issue as to which there are arguments pro and con. The trial judge indicated that he saw no need for an accounting at that time, and no showing has been made otherwise. Whether or not petitioner had standing, the trial judge evidently would not have ordered an interim accounting, and he was not required to do so. Id. Cf. Fla.R.P. & G.P. 5.345. Thus, we do not conclude that, even if petitioner did have standing, there was reversible error.

Affirmed.

DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 570, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1518, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillan-v-rogers-fladistctapp-1987.