Weiss v. Trust Under Will of Pollak

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weiss v. Trust Under Will of Pollak

595 So. 2d 1035, 1992 WL 43202

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1992

Docket91-1547, 91-1471

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 595 So. 2d 1035 (Weiss v. Trust Under Will of Pollak) 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

Weiss v. Trust Under Will of Pollak, 595 So. 2d 1035, 1992 WL 43202 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

595 So.2d 1035 (1992)

Patricia Pollak WEISS and Thomas Pollak, Appellants,
v.
TRUST UNDER the WILL OF Albert POLLAK and Phyllis Pollak Berkett, and Courshon & Courshon and Bloom, and Its Successor Courshon & Courshon, Partnerships and Arthur H. Courshon, Esq., Jack R. Courshon, Esq., and Simon H. Bloom, Jr., Esq., Appellees.

Nos. 91-1547, 91-1471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 10, 1992. Rehearing Denied April 28, 1992.

*1036 Patricia Pollak Weiss and Thomas A. Pollak, in pro. per.

Steel, Hector & Davis and Denise B. Crockett and Alvin B. Davis, Miami, for Arthur H. Courshon, Jack R. Courshon, Courshon & Courshon and Bloom, and its successor Courshon & Courshon and Simon H. Bloom.

Jonathan C. Oster, Coral Gables, Broad and Cassel and Michael A. Dribin, Miami, for Phyllis Pollak Berkett.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, beneficiaries of a trust, appeal from orders assessing $1,500 in costs as sanctions and appointing a commissioner to conduct evidentiary hearings in contested estate matters. We affirm the order imposing sanctions. The trial court properly assessed costs against the appellants for a scurrilous attack on the commissioner which was factually unwarranted and made in bad faith. See The Florida Bar, In re Shimek, 284 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1973).

The appeal on the merits is dismissed because the appellants made no motion to intervene, see Bay Park Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. H.J. Ross & Assocs., 503 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and have not demonstrated by the pleadings that they otherwise have standing. Compare Pearlman v. Pearlman, 405 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(unnamed party whose rights are directly and injuriously affected may move, in that action, to set aside fraudulent judgment). This dismissal on the merits, however, does not preclude an independent action based on fraud by the trustee or other parties.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part accordingly.

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

595 So.2d 1035 (1992)

Patricia Pollak WEISS and Thomas Pollak, Appellants,
v.
TRUST UNDER the WILL OF Albert POLLAK and Phyllis Pollak Berkett, and Courshon & Courshon and Bloom, and Its Successor Courshon & Courshon, Partnerships and Arthur H. Courshon, Esq., Jack R. Courshon, Esq., and Simon H. Bloom, Jr., Esq., Appellees.

Nos. 91-1547, 91-1471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 10, 1992. Rehearing Denied April 28, 1992.

*1036 Patricia Pollak Weiss and Thomas A. Pollak, in pro. per.

Steel, Hector & Davis and Denise B. Crockett and Alvin B. Davis, Miami, for Arthur H. Courshon, Jack R. Courshon, Courshon & Courshon and Bloom, and its successor Courshon & Courshon and Simon H. Bloom.

Jonathan C. Oster, Coral Gables, Broad and Cassel and Michael A. Dribin, Miami, for Phyllis Pollak Berkett.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, beneficiaries of a trust, appeal from orders assessing $1,500 in costs as sanctions and appointing a commissioner to conduct evidentiary hearings in contested estate matters. We affirm the order imposing sanctions. The trial court properly assessed costs against the appellants for a scurrilous attack on the commissioner which was factually unwarranted and made in bad faith. See The Florida Bar, In re Shimek, 284 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1973).

The appeal on the merits is dismissed because the appellants made no motion to intervene, see Bay Park Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. H.J. Ross & Assocs., 503 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), and have not demonstrated by the pleadings that they otherwise have standing. Compare Pearlman v. Pearlman, 405 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)(unnamed party whose rights are directly and injuriously affected may move, in that action, to set aside fraudulent judgment). This dismissal on the merits, however, does not preclude an independent action based on fraud by the trustee or other parties.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 So. 2d 1035, 1992 WL 43202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiss-v-trust-under-will-of-pollak-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack