Pearce v. Foster
This text of 454 So. 2d 721 (Pearce v. Foster) 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.
Opinion
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Appellant, in his capacity as co-personal representative of the estate of Austin Pearce, seeks to appeal an order revoking probate of a will, dated September 8, 1980. We decline to reach the merits because we discern a deficiency in appellant’s ability to prosecute this appeal.
Appellant filed the notice of appeal without obtaining the concurrence of the co-personal representative, Juanell P. Peeples. Appellee Peeples has challenged this unilateral action by filing a motion to dismiss or quash the appeal. She claims that appellant’s unilateral action contravenes section 733.615, Florida Statutes (1983), which provides that:
If two or more persons are appointed joint personal representatives, and unless the will provides otherwise, the concurrence of all is required on all acts connected with the administration and distribution of the estate. This restriction does not apply when any joint personal representative receives and receipts for property due the estate, when the concurrence of all cannot readily be obtained in the time reasonably available for emergency action necessary to preserve the estate, or when a joint personal representative has been delegated to act for the others.
Since none of the exceptions noted in the statute is applicable in this case, appellant may not act alone. See Messina v. Scionti, 406 So.2d 529 (Fla.2d DCA 1981). Nonetheless, at this time, we decline to dismiss the appeal. Rather, we relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing to determine whether appel-lee’s refusal to join in this appeal constitutes cause for her removal pursuant to section 733.504, Florida Statutes (1983).1 [723]*723Should the trial court find cause for removal, appellant would be authorized to proceed with this appeal. Cf. In re Estate of Goldner, 389 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In any event, we respectfully request that the trial court furnish us with a copy of the order entered on remand.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
454 So. 2d 721, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1790, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearce-v-foster-fladistctapp-1984.