IN RE ESTATE OF JEREMY MINDLIN, DECEASED. LEO MINDLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
KAREN MINDLIN, 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.
Leo Mindlin appealed the trial court's appointment of his daughter-in-law, Karen Mindlin, as personal representative of his son's estate, despite being nominated in the will. The court reversed, holding that a testator's nomination in a will must be honored absent disqualification or unforeseen circumstances.
The court held that a testator has the right to name the personal representative of his estate, and a trial court has no discretion to refuse to appoint the nominated person if that person is qualified and no unforeseen circumstances exist that would have affected the testator's decision.
[1] A testator has the right to name the person who shall administer his estate, provided that person is not disqualified by law.
[2] A trial court has no discretion to refuse to appoint a person named in a will as personal representative if that person meets all statutory qualifications and no unforese…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is well established that a testator has the right to name the person who shall administer his estate provided such person is not disqualified by law.”
Establishes the foundational principle that testators have the right to choose their estate administrator subject to statutory qualifications.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeremy Mindlin executed a will in 1984 naming his father, Leo Mindlin, as personal representative. Jeremy subsequently married Karen Mindlin but never…
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 Pretermitted Spouse cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Leo Mindlin, challenges an order denying his petition to be appointed personal representative of the estate of his son, Jeremy Mindlin. We reverse.
Jeremy Mindlin executed a last will and testament in 1984 nominating his father, Leo Mindlin, as personal representative. Subsequent to executing the will, Jeremy married the appellee, Karen Mindlin. At no time during the marriage was a new will or codicil executed.
After Jeremy’s death, both parties petitioned for appointment as personal repre sentative of his estate. The appellant sought appointment on the basis that he was nominated in his late son’s will. The appellee sought appointment based upon her status as a pretermitted spouse. The trial court determined Mrs. Mindlin to be a pretermitted spouse and appointed her personal representative. This timely appeal followed.
It is well established that a testator has the right to name the person who shall administer his estate provided such person is not disqualified by law. In re Kenton’s Estate v. Kenton, 423 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1983). A trial court has no discretion to refuse to appoint as personal representative the person named in a will if that person meets all of the statutory qualifications and no unforeseen circumstances arise which clearly would have affected the testator’s decision to name the personal representative had he been aware of the same. Pontrello v. Estate of Kenneth C. Kepler, 528 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). There was no evidence presented that the appellant was not qualified for appointment as personal representative, nor was there any evidence of unforeseen circumstances which would have affected the testator’s decision. Therefore, the trial court had no discretion to override the testator’s desire to have the appellant appointed as personal representative.
We, accordingly, reverse the order naming Karen Mindlin as personal representative and remand with instructions to name Leo Mindlin as personal representative.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and LEHAN and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brake v. Eve E. Murphy, 591 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…putes constitutes a legal reason for disqualifying Mr. Murphy; plainly a personal representative often must take sides in disputes which may arise with respect to an estate. State v. North, 159 Fla. 351, 32 So. 2d 14 (1947); In re Estate of Mindlin, 571 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); In re Estate of Kenton, 423 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1983); § 733.301(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). The order under review is affirmed, save for that portion of the order which appoints Herbert…
-
Araguel v. Lesley Ladon Bryan (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…would have changed the testator’s mind had [she] been aware” of the alleged event. Miller, 568 So. 2d at 489 (emphasis added). Under these conditions, the trial court was without discretion to deny Sanders’ appointment. See In re Estate of Mindlin, 571 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that the trial court had no discretion to override the testator’s desire to have his father appointed as personal representative where there was no evidence presented that the testator’s father was not qualified for t…
Authorities Cited
- Pontrello v. Est. OF Kenneth C. Kepler, 528 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- In re The Est. OF John W. Kenton, Jr. v. Kenton, 423 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)