Tindall v. Walker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tindall v. Walker

540 So. 2d 947, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 950, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1951, 1989 WL 34823

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 1989

DocketNo. 88-00910

StatusPublished

This text of 540 So. 2d 947 (Tindall v. Walker) 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

Tindall v. Walker, 540 So. 2d 947, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 950, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1951, 1989 WL 34823 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Reecy Tindall, challenges an order removing her as the personal representative of her deceased sister’s estate. She raises several issues, only one of which has any merit.

The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in finding that she had paid excessive fees to herself because the parties had agreed and the trial court had entered a pretrial order stating that expert testimony concerning the amount of fees charged would be deferred to a subsequent date. We agree, and revise the trial court’s order of February 11, 1988, as amended by the court’s order denying rehearing on March 3, 1988, to provide that the issue of exces-siveness of fees paid by the personal repre[948]*948sentative to herself shall be subject to determination at a further hearing.

Otherwise, the orders are affirmed.

SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Reecy Tindall, challenges an order removing her as the personal representative of her deceased sister’s estate. She raises several issues, only one of which has any merit.

The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in finding that she had paid excessive fees to herself because the parties had agreed and the trial court had entered a pretrial order stating that expert testimony concerning the amount of fees charged would be deferred to a subsequent date. We agree, and revise the trial court’s order of February 11, 1988, as amended by the court’s order denying rehearing on March 3, 1988, to provide that the issue of exces-siveness of fees paid by the personal repre[948]*948sentative to herself shall be subject to determination at a further hearing.

Otherwise, the orders are affirmed.

SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 So. 2d 947, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 950, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1951, 1989 WL 34823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tindall-v-walker-fladistctapp-1989.