PAUL OPITZ, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FREDERICK A. MORGAN AS ADMINISTRATOR WITH WILL ANNEXED OF WILLIAM TREUTLER, 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.
Beneficiaries of an estate challenged an administrator's management by filing a bill in equity seeking an accounting and discovery. The trial court dismissed the bill, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction with probate courts over estate administration matters, particularly where the probate court cannot provide complete relief.
The circuit court has exclusive original jurisdiction in equity cases and possesses concurrent jurisdiction with the probate court over matters pertaining to estate administration. Circuit courts may grant relief in equity that the probate court cannot provide to achieve complete justice, particularly where specialized equitable relief is necessary.
“a court of equity has concurrent jurisdiction with the probate court over the administration of the assets of deceased persons, and that the probate court may remove an administrator, but it cannot grant the same relief as a court of chancery”
Establishes the foundational principle that equity courts and probate courts have overlapping jurisdiction but different remedial powers
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeneficiaries of William Treutler's estate filed a bill in equity alleging mismanagement by the administrator with the will annexed (Frederick A. Morg…
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 Probate Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
A bill in equity was brought by benefi ciaries of an estate alleging various acts of mismanage ment of the estate by the administrator with the will an- Hexed and praying for an accounting, for discovery and for general relief. A demurrer to the bill of complaint on the ground that the relief sought could be had in the County Judge’s Court, in which court the settlement of the estate is pending, was sustained. An amended bill was filed and on motion it was dismissed. The complainants appealed.
A motion to dismiss a bill in equity for want of equity is not known to our practice. See Hull v. Burr, 61 Fla. 625, 55 South. Rep. 852.
Under the Constitution of 1868, which gave Circuit Courts “original jurisdiction in all cases in equity,” and “appellate jurisdiction of matters pertaining to the probate jurisdiction and the estates and interests of minors in the county courts,” it was held that a court of equity has concurrent jurisdiction with the probate court over the administration of the assets of deceased persons, and that the probate court may remove an administrator, but it cannot grant the same relief as a court of chancery. Sanderson’s Admr. v. Sanderson, 17 Fla. 820, text 831.
Under the present Constitution the Circuit Courts “have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in equity * * and supervision and appellate jurisdiction of matters arising before County Judges pertaining to their probate jurisdiction, or to the estates and interests of minors.”
It seems clear that the Circuit Court as courts of equity have jurisdiction in all such cases as this particularly where as in this case the probate court cannot administer the relief necessary to complete justice in the premises. This was the rule under the Constitution of 1868. See Ritch v. Bellamy, 14 Fla. 537.
The order appealed from is reversed. 8hacklefobd, (J. J., and Taylob, Cockbell and Hockek, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Allen v. Allen, 111 Fla. 733 (Fla. 1933)…equity have concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law. Ritch v. Bellamy, 14 Fla. 537; Sanderson v. Sanderson, 17 Fla. 820; Deans v. Wilcoxson, 25 Fla. 980, 7 So; 163; Benedict v. Wilmarth, 46 Fla. 535, 35 So. 84, 4 Ann. Cas. 1033; Opitz v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 469, 67 So. 67; First Trust and Savings Bank v. Henderson, 101 Fla. 1437, 136 So. 370; Cole v. Cole, 106 Fla. 226, 143 So. 235. We are not unmindful of th*e holding in some jurisdictions to the effect that estates should not be administered through a re…
-
Wallace v. Luxmoore, 156 Fla. 725 (Fla. 1946)…interests of minors.” This court has repeatedly held that the circuit courts as courts of equity have jurisdiction in cases where as in this the probate court cannot administer such relief as will give complete and adequate justice. Opitz v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 469, 67 So. 67; Allen v. Allen, 111 Fla. 733, 150 So. 237; Cole v. Cole, 106 Fla. 226, 143 So. 235; Henderson v. Ewell, 111 Fla. 324, 149 So. 372. In the case at bar the will brought in question provides for the creation of two trusts that are distinct…
-
Krivitsky v. NYE, 155 Fla. 45 (Fla. 1944)…en, 120 Fla. 333, 162 So. 715; Link v. Friou, 116 Fla. 337, 156 So. 719; Allen, v. Allen, 111 Fla. 733, 150 So. 237; Cole v. Cole, 106 Fla. 226, 143 So. [*50] 235; First Trust & Savings Bank v. Henderson, 101 Fla. 1437, 136 So. 370; Opitz v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 469, 67 So. 67; Benedict v. Wilmarth, 46 Fla. 535, 35 So. 84; Dean v. Wilcoxon, 25 Fla. 980, 7 So. 163; Sanderson v. Sanderson’s Adm’rs., 17 Fla, 820; Ritch v. Bellamy, 14 Fla. 537; Smith v. Smith, 210 Fed. 947; Glover v. Brown, 32 Idaho 426, 184 Pac. 6…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanderson's Administrators v. Sanderson, 17 Fla. 820 (Fla. 1880)
- H. L. Ritch & Co. v. Burton Bellamy, 14 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1874)
- Hull v. Arthur E. Burr in Bankr. of the Port Tampa Phosphate Co., 61 Fla. 625 (Fla. 1911)