Nash v. Little River Bank & Trust Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nash v. Little River Bank & Trust Co.

143 So. 2d 693

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1962

DocketNo. 62-13

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 So. 2d 693 (Nash v. Little River Bank & Trust Co.) 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

Nash v. Little River Bank & Trust Co., 143 So. 2d 693 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

BARKDULL, Judge.

In this appeal, the appellant [who was the petitioner in the county judge’s court] seeks review of an order denying a petition to declare the bequest of a decedent null and void as being contrary to the provisions of § 731.07(5), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

It appears, from the undisputed facts in this cause, that at the time the deceased executed his will two officers and an employee of the appellee-bank were the subscribing and attesting witnesses. Two of said witnesses were stockholders in the bank. The Last Will and Testament of the deceased named the bank as trustee, and it is the contention of the appellant that the lower court erred in failing to adjudicate the bequest to the hank, as trustee, null and [694]*694void in view of the provisions of § 731.07(5), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.¹

Under such circumstances, it would have been a better practice if the hank had used subscribing and attesting witnesses who were not its officers, employees or stockholders, and then there could be no question of impropriety. However, it does not appear that the bank, as trustee, actually received any beneficial interest from the estate. The order of the county judge was correct, in light of the principles announced in In re Roger’s Estate, 15 N.J.Super. 189, 83 A.2d 268; Leonard v. Stanton, 93 N.H. 113, 36 A.2d 271; Vol. 2, Page on Wills (Bowe-Parks Revised), § 19.94. Therefore, the order under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BARKDULL, Judge.

In this appeal, the appellant [who was the petitioner in the county judge’s court] seeks review of an order denying a petition to declare the bequest of a decedent null and void as being contrary to the provisions of § 731.07(5), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

It appears, from the undisputed facts in this cause, that at the time the deceased executed his will two officers and an employee of the appellee-bank were the subscribing and attesting witnesses. Two of said witnesses were stockholders in the bank. The Last Will and Testament of the deceased named the bank as trustee, and it is the contention of the appellant that the lower court erred in failing to adjudicate the bequest to the hank, as trustee, null and [694]*694void in view of the provisions of § 731.07(5), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.¹

Under such circumstances, it would have been a better practice if the hank had used subscribing and attesting witnesses who were not its officers, employees or stockholders, and then there could be no question of impropriety. However, it does not appear that the bank, as trustee, actually received any beneficial interest from the estate. The order of the county judge was correct, in light of the principles announced in In re Roger’s Estate, 15 N.J.Super. 189, 83 A.2d 268; Leonard v. Stanton, 93 N.H. 113, 36 A.2d 271; Vol. 2, Page on Wills (Bowe-Parks Revised), § 19.94. Therefore, the order under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 So. 2d 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nash-v-little-river-bank-trust-co-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack