Turner v. Myers

332 So. 2d 635, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14427
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 25, 1976
DocketNo. 75-1601
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 332 So. 2d 635 (Turner v. Myers) 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
Turner v. Myers, 332 So. 2d 635, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14427 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dorothea Turner, executrix of the estate of William Turner, deceased, appeals an order granting the petition of claimant, Marie Myers, for extension of time for filing suit. Ms. Myers cross-appeals from that portion of the order denying her petition for compulsory payment of claims.

On June 6, 1974 Ms. Myers filed two claims against the Turner estate through her attorneys. On July 9 the attorney for the estate filed objections and served them by regular mail on Ms. Myers’ attorneys. Ms. Myers petitioned for compulsory payment of the claims on the ground that she was never served personally or by registered mail as required by § 733.18(2), Fla. Stat. and, therefore, the objections are deemed to have been abandoned. The petition was denied. Whereupon, Ms. Myers filed a motion for rehearing and a petition for extension of time for filing suit. The trial judge entered an order granting extension of time for filing suit and denying the motion for rehearing.

Dorothea Turner alleges the granting of the extension of time was error. We cannot agree.

The decision to grant or deny a petition for the extension of time for filing suit (pursuant to § 733.18(2), Fla.Stat.) is within the sound discretion of the probate judge and the record fails to reflect an abuse of that discretion. See Smoak v. Graham, Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 559; In re Estate of Sale, Fla.1969, 227 So.2d 199.

We also considered Ms. Myers’ cross-appeal and find that the issue she raises has been adversely determined by the holding In re Estate of Brugh, Fla.App.1975, 306 So.2d 599.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Arky v. Harris
504 So. 2d 813 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Mautner v. Loman
353 So. 2d 632 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
332 So. 2d 635, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-myers-fladistctapp-1976.