Steckel v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Steckel v. Brown

449 So. 2d 931, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13069

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 1, 1984·No. No. 83-2746·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

While the trial court correctly ruled that the plaintiffs-appellants had no viable claim based upon the face of the wills in question themselves, it plainly abused its discretion in denying their motion to amend the complaint with respect to their assertion that they were entitled to the imposition of a constructive trust upon assets of the defendant estate and in consequently entering summary judgment in its favor. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Thompson Aircraft Tire Corp., 353 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Pasekoff v. Kaufman, 392 So.2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

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

PER CURIAM.

While the trial court correctly ruled that the plaintiffs-appellants had no viable claim based upon the face of the wills in question themselves, it plainly abused its discretion in denying their motion to amend the complaint with respect to their assertion that they were entitled to the imposition of a constructive trust upon assets of the defendant estate and in consequently entering summary judgment in its favor. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Thompson Aircraft Tire Corp., 353 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Pasekoff v. Kaufman, 392 So.2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Steckel v. Brown, 449 So. 2d 931, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13069 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

449 So. 2d 931 (Steckel v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related