Vazza v. Estate of Vazza

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vazza v. Estate of Vazza

144 So. 3d 698, 2014 WL 4082864, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12812

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 2014

DocketNo. 4D1L-320

StatusPublished

This text of 144 So. 3d 698 (Vazza v. Estate of Vazza) 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

Vazza v. Estate of Vazza, 144 So. 3d 698, 2014 WL 4082864, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12812 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHER, ROSEMARIE, Associate Judge.

Richard W. Vazza and Stephen F. Vaz-za, former personal representatives of their father’s estate, appeal the trial court’s December 8, 2013 “Order on [Successor] Personal Representative’s Motion to Void and Set Aside Transactions Involving Conflicts of Interest.” The order required the Vazzas to return and reimburse the estate for allegedly improperly distributed funds.

Despite the disputed allegations regarding whether the Vazzas acted properly under Florida law and within their statutory power, the trial court entered its order requiring return of specific funds without holding an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case back to the trial court to hold an evidentia-ry hearing. See In re Estate of Winston, 610 So.2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (citing § 733.6175, Fla. Stat. (1991)) (“[T]he Florida probate court has exclusive jurisdiction and is obligated to review estate fees upon the petition of a proper party.”).

Reversed and remanded for evidentiary hearing.

GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

SCHER, ROSEMARIE, Associate Judge.

Richard W. Vazza and Stephen F. Vaz-za, former personal representatives of their father’s estate, appeal the trial court’s December 8, 2013 “Order on [Successor] Personal Representative’s Motion to Void and Set Aside Transactions Involving Conflicts of Interest.” The order required the Vazzas to return and reimburse the estate for allegedly improperly distributed funds.

Despite the disputed allegations regarding whether the Vazzas acted properly under Florida law and within their statutory power, the trial court entered its order requiring return of specific funds without holding an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case back to the trial court to hold an evidentia-ry hearing. See In re Estate of Winston, 610 So.2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (citing § 733.6175, Fla. Stat. (1991)) (“[T]he Florida probate court has exclusive jurisdiction and is obligated to review estate fees upon the petition of a proper party.”).

Reversed and remanded for evidentiary hearing.

GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 So. 3d 698, 2014 WL 4082864, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vazza-v-estate-of-vazza-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack