ESTATE OF LOU BACON, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS-APPELLEES,
v.
ADELE BACON, APPELLEE-APPELLANT
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.
Summary judgments against the estate and beneficiaries were erroneous because the estate was improperly represented and the plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to judgment against affirmative defenses.
The estate was represented by a person with adverse interests, and the plaintiff failed to conclusively establish her claims against the beneficiaries…
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 Administrator Ad Litem cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The summary judgment against the estate was incorrectly entered because it was at that time represented only by a person whose interests were obviously adverse. See Edmonson v. Frank J. Rooney, Inc., 171 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (adverse interest renders appointment of administrator ad litem jurisdictionally required even though not requested; judgment obtained in absence of such appointment void); § 733.308, Fla.Stat. (1989); see also In re Estate of Bell, 573 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
On the merits, the judgments against both the estate and the beneficiaries were likewise erroneous because the plaintiff failed entirely, let alone conclusively, to establish her entitlement to judgment in the face of the affirmative defenses contained in the beneficiaries’ answer.1 Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Russo v. Ross, 545 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Hyde Shipping Corp. v. Concrete Asfaltico Nacional, 507 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Puritan Ins. Co. v. Frank, 436 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). For these reasons,2 the summary judgments are reversed and the cause remanded for trial on all issues.
This determination moots the pending appeal, no. 90-1061, from the denial of relief under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b). That order is accordingly vacated.
Case no. 90-229 is an appeal by the plaintiff from the denial of attorney’s fees claimed against the estate and the beneficiaries under § 57.105. In accordance with our previous determinations, that order is necessarily affirmed.
Reversed in part, vacated in part, affirmed in part and remanded with directions.
. These defenses are deemed applicable to the estate. See Shambow v. Shambow, 149 Fla. 278, 5 So. 2d 454 (1942).
. We need not discuss the numerous other bases for reversal of the summary judgments in question.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Shambow v. Shambow, 149 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1942)
- In re the Est. OF Katherine v. Bell, 573 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Edmonson v. Frank J. Rooney, Inc., 171 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Puritan Ins. Co. v. Frank, 436 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Hyde Shipping Corp. v. Concreto Asfaltico Nacional, S.A., 507 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Russo v. Ross, 545 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)