IN RE THE ESTATE OF JOSE R. VALDES, DECEASED. SUSANNA VALDES, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH A. VALDES, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOSE R. VALDES, DECEASED, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed the trial court's exclusion of testimonial evidence under Florida's Dead Man's Statute, holding that without timely objection, the statute does not preclude admission of the excluded testimony.
Section 90.602, Florida Statutes (the Dead Man's Statute), does not preclude admission of excluded testimony when there was no timely, proper objection.
[1] The Dead Man's Statute does not preclude admission of excluded testimony when the party against whom the statute operates fails to make a timely, proper objection at tria…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an estate proceeding, the trial court excluded certain testimonial evidence under the Dead Man's Statute, which protects estates by restricting tes…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Evidentiary Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment in this cause is reversed with directions that, upon remand to the trial court, the excluded testimonial evidence be admitted and leave is hereby given for additional testimony to be taken at that time; a reevaluation of all the testimonial evidence shall be made at the close of the proceedings. Our decision is based upon our determination that the appellant-widow has sufficiently demonstrated that under the facts of the case, where there was no timely, proper objection, Section 90.602, Florida Statutes (1978),1 does not preclude the admission of the heretofore-excluded testimony and further testimony, if such is deemed necessary. See Mathews v. Hines, 444 F.Supp. 1201 (M.D.Fla.1978); In re Bechtel’s Estate, 348 So. 2d 927 (Fla.1977); Laragione v. Hagan, 195 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), affirmed 205 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1967); Allstate Insurance Company v. Doody, 193 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Bordacs v. Kimmel, 139 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. This section, commonly known as the “Dead-man’s Statute,” provides protection for the estates of the deceased and the insane by making certain interested persons incompetent to testify in an action against the estate regarding oral communications with the deceased or insane person; Section 90.602, as replacing repealed Section 90.05, is substantially a restatement of that section, and the same class of persons is protected.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bordacs v. Kimmel, 139 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Doody, 193 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Hagan v. Fabiano Laragione, 205 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1967)
- Fabiano Laragione v. Hagan, 195 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- In re Estate v. Bechtel, 348 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)