Robert Paul Brown, Jr. v. Michael Scott Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robert Paul Brown, Jr. v. Michael Scott Brown

169 So. 3d 286, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10748, 2015 WL 4269921

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 2015

Docket4D12-2446

StatusPublished

This text of 169 So. 3d 286 (Robert Paul Brown, Jr. v. Michael Scott Brown) 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

Robert Paul Brown, Jr. v. Michael Scott Brown, 169 So. 3d 286, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10748, 2015 WL 4269921 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

GERBER, J.

An estate beneficiary appeals from the circuit court’s final order directing the personal representative to divide and distribute “the [decedent’s] Georgia real estate and Florida real estate and other miscellaneous inventory assets of the Estate” amongst several estate beneficiaries. The appellant primarily argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to direct the per *287 sonal representative to distribute the decedent’s Georgia real estate.

We agree and reverse that portion of the order on appeal. See Polkowski v. Polkowski, 854 So.2d 286, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Like lines in the sand, state boundaries determine a court’s jurisdiction over real property,” and thus the court lacked in rem jurisdiction to order the partition and sale of foreign property); Pawlik v. Pawlik, 545 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“In no event could the [circuit] court effect a partition of lands outside this state.”) (citation omitted); In re Roberg’s Estate, 396 So.2d 235, 235-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (“When a testator executes a will devising lands in two or more states, the courts in each state construe it as to the lands located therein as if devised by separate wills.”) (citations omitted).

To partition property from outside this state, the personal representative needs to open an ancillary action in Georgia. See § 64.022, Fla. Stat. (2012) (a suit for partition “shall be brought in any county where the lands or any part thereof lie which are the subject matter of the action.”).

In all other respects, we affirm the order on appeal without further discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.

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

GERBER, J.

An estate beneficiary appeals from the circuit court’s final order directing the personal representative to divide and distribute “the [decedent’s] Georgia real estate and Florida real estate and other miscellaneous inventory assets of the Estate” amongst several estate beneficiaries. The appellant primarily argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to direct the per *287 sonal representative to distribute the decedent’s Georgia real estate.

We agree and reverse that portion of the order on appeal. See Polkowski v. Polkowski, 854 So.2d 286, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Like lines in the sand, state boundaries determine a court’s jurisdiction over real property,” and thus the court lacked in rem jurisdiction to order the partition and sale of foreign property); Pawlik v. Pawlik, 545 So.2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“In no event could the [circuit] court effect a partition of lands outside this state.”) (citation omitted); In re Roberg’s Estate, 396 So.2d 235, 235-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (“When a testator executes a will devising lands in two or more states, the courts in each state construe it as to the lands located therein as if devised by separate wills.”) (citations omitted).

To partition property from outside this state, the personal representative needs to open an ancillary action in Georgia. See § 64.022, Fla. Stat. (2012) (a suit for partition “shall be brought in any county where the lands or any part thereof lie which are the subject matter of the action.”).

In all other respects, we affirm the order on appeal without further discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 So. 3d 286, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10748, 2015 WL 4269921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-paul-brown-jr-v-michael-scott-brown-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack