JOSEPH NELSON
v.
DARCELLE MCNEILL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH NELSON
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.
Joseph Nelson appeals a probate court order imposing sanctions against him, including disinheritance from an estate. The appellate court dismisses the monetary sanctions portion as not final but affirms the disinheritance finding, holding that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in determining Nelson's noncompliance was willful and wanton.
The monetary sanctions portion of the order is not final and appealable because further judicial labor is required to determine the amount, so that portion is dismissed. However, the disinheritance provision is final and appealable because no further judicial labor is required to implement it. The probate court did not abuse its discretion in finding Nelson's noncompliance was willful and wanton.
[1] An appeal may be dismissed if the order appealed from contemplates further judicial labor by the trial court.
[2] An order disinheriting a party from an estate is considered final and appealable if no further judicial labor is required.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“orders which clearly contemplate additional judicial labor by the probate court do not finally determine a right or obligation”
Establishes the test for whether an order is appealable—final orders require no further judicial action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe probate court issued an earlier order that Nelson violated. Nelson's failure to comply with that order was at issue in the March 3, 2022 sanctions…
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 Finality Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
NARDELLA, J.
Joseph Nelson (“Nelson”) appeals the probate court’s March 3, 2022 order imposing sanctions against him.1 Because judicial labor remains to determine the amount of the monetary sanction against Nelson, we dismiss that portion of the appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.170(b) (limiting appeals to orders that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code); see also N. Tr. Co. as T.
of Elizabeth W. Walker Tr. v. Abbott, 313 So. 3d 792, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (noting that orders which clearly contemplate additional judicial labor by the probate court do not finally determine a right or obligation). As to the probate court’s determination that Nelson shall not receive any distribution from the Estate we find that portion of the trial court’s order to be final because no further judicial labor is required to disinherit Nelson. See id. We further find that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Nelson’s failure to comply with its earlier order was willful and wanton. See Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983) (affirming trial court’s order granting sanctions where record contained logical basis for exercise of trial court’s discretion and trial court found defendant’s actions amounted to willful disregard). Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the probate court’s order without further discussion. DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part. SASSO, C.J., and WOZNIAK, J., concur. Serena M. Kurtz, of Kurtz Law Offices, LLC, Orlando, for Appellant.
David E. Borack, of Borack Law Group, P.A., Longwood, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nelson v. Darcelle McNeill, 313 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 6th DCA 2022)…t or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code); see also N. Tr. Co. as T. 1 This case was transferred from the Fifth District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023. of Elizabeth W. Walker Tr. v. Abbott, 313 So. 3d 792, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (noting that orders which clearly contemplate additional judicial labor by the probate court do not finally determine a right or obligation). As to the probate court’s determination that Nelson shall not receive any distribu…
-
GR Rehab Ctr., Inc. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…. 3d 690, 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“If an order on appeal fails to ‘terminate judicial labor or provide finality as to any issue or party in [the] case,’ it is subject to dismissal.” (quoting N. Tr. Co. as Tr. of Elizabeth W. Walker Tr. v. Abbott, 313 So. 3d 792, 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021))). Indeed, 2 Specifically, GEICO argued that GR’s lawsuit was filed in contravention of Section 627.736(10)(d) of the Florida Statutes, which prohibits the filing of a lawsuit against a PIP insurer within thirty days of…
-
Ladonna Hudkins v. Hudkins (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…, 319 So. 3d 690, 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“[Rule 9.170(b)] enumerates a nonexclusive list of twenty- three orders that fall under the umbrella of rule 9.170(b)’s finality requirement.” (quoting N. Tr. Co. as Tr. of Elizabeth W. Walker Tr. v. Abbott, 313 So. 3d 792, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021))). As a result, a notice of appeal would be required to be filed within 30 days of any order that falls under rule 9.170(b). See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). The Order Determining Total Incapacity, which was issued on August 26,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Nelson v. Darcelle McNeill, 313 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 6th DCA 2022)