Picchione v. Asti

354 So. 2d 954
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 7, 1978
Docket76-2321
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 354 So. 2d 954 (Picchione v. Asti) 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
Picchione v. Asti, 354 So. 2d 954 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

354 So.2d 954 (1978)

Nicholas PICCHIONE, d/b/a Nicholas Picchione & Co., Appellant,
v.
Robert ASTI, Earl DeMaris and Demetra DeMaris, Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Alfred DeMaris, Deceased, Appellees.

No. 76-2321.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

February 7, 1978.

Sciarretta & Jackvony, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

*955 PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary final judgment entered in an action against the estate of Alfred DeMaris upon the basis that the plaintiff was barred from proceeding with the action because of his failure to file a claim in the estate pursuant to Section 733.702, Florida Statutes (1975). The fact of the plaintiff's failure was established on the record. The only suggested issue of fact is that the estate was estopped to assert the statute. See Davis v. Evans, 132 So.2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). No reply upon the basis of estoppel was asserted. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.100. Plaintiff produced nothing in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Therefore, summary judgment was properly entered.

A second point presented by appellant urges the unconstitutionality of Section 733.702, Florida Statutes (1975). The plaintiff did not challenge the constitutionality of the statute in the trial court and, therefore, cannot raise the question for the first time on this appeal. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1970).[1]

Affirmed.

NOTES

[1] It is noted that if the constitutionality of the statute had been properly raised, the proper appeal would have been to the Supreme Court of Florida. See Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

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

Related

May v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co.
771 So. 2d 1143 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Jones v. Sun Bank/Miami, NA
609 So. 2d 98 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Verde Capital Corp. v. Gutierrez
548 So. 2d 698 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Velzy v. Estate of Miller
502 So. 2d 1295 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Campbell v. Estate of Schleusener
504 So. 2d 417 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Barnett Bank v. Estate of Read
493 So. 2d 447 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1986)
In re the Estate of Schleusener
18 Fla. Supp. 2d 24 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1986)
In re Estate of Read
472 So. 2d 1271 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Rubin v. Glick
419 So. 2d 817 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
354 So. 2d 954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/picchione-v-asti-fladistctapp-1978.