IN RE THE ESTATE OF EILEEN ELLIS MURPHY, DECEASED. EILEEN M. BRAKE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF EILEEN ELLIS MURPHY, DECEASED, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
EVE E. MURPHY, ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
As the record before us indicates that the proceeding below was conducted as an adversary proceeding pursuant to Florida Probate Rule 5.025, it was governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. 5.025(d)(2). Appellant's timely motion for rehearing was authorized under Rule 1.530, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and suspended rendition of the final order until the motion was disposed of. Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). The appeal is timely.
Contrary to appellees’ assumption, the result would be the same in nonadversary proceedings. Since 1981, Florida Probate Rule 5.020(d) has authorized a motion for rehearing of any order or judgment. Id.; see In re Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure, 387 So. 2d 949 (Fla.1980); In re Estate of Beeman, 391 So. 2d 276, 279 & n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). A timely motion under Rule 5.020(d) suspends rendition of the order to which it is directed. Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). The authority relied on by appellee, In re Estate of Crissey, 286 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), was based entirely on the fact that the pre-1981 probate and guardianship rules did not authorize motions for rehearing. In view of the 1981 amendment, Cris-sey is no longer good law.
Motion to dismiss denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Brake, 767 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2000)…urphy, 621 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Brake v. Stettin, 599 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Brake v. Murphy, 591 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), enforcement denied, Brake v. Murphy, 626 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); In re Estate of Murphy, 573 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Brake v. Estate of Murphy, 559 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). [*1166] The referee recommended that Mrs. Brake be found guilty of violating rule 4-8.4(c) and (d). With respect to these recommendations, the referee’s order states:…
-
Brake v. The Est. OF Eileen Ellis Murphy, 678 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…. denied,—U.S.——, 116 S.Ct. 1019, 134 L.Ed.2d 99 (1996); Murphy v. Estate of Murphy, 621 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Brake v. Stettin, 599 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Brake V. Murphy, 591 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); In re Estate of Murphy, 573 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Brake v. Estate of Murphy, 559 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). . Dennis Murphy since died, and the personal representative of his estate is the party in this appeal. . The Report and Recommendation of the Successor Personal Rep…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Calero, 391 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- In re Est. of George E. Beeman, 391 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- The Fla. Bar. in re Fla. Rules of Probate & Guardianship Procedure, 387 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)
- In re the Est. of Margaret J. Crissey, 286 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)