IN RE ESTATE OF CELIA SCHATZ, DECEASED, BRENDA VERBECK, CYNTHIA GOLDMAN, AND ALAN SHEPPER, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUSAN ALTMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE, 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.
The court held that the probate order was final and appealable, and since the appeal was filed beyond the thirty-day limit, the court lacks jurisdiction.
Appellants argued the trial court incorrectly determined a certificate of deposit was not a probate asset. The probate order conclusively determined o…
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 Final Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
We agree with the appellants’ argument that the trial court incorrectly determined that a “jumbo” certificate of approximately $33,000 was not a probate asset. The record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that no survivorship provision was instituted nor intended.
We would elaborate further on the facts surrounding the title to the certificate; however, the foregoing does not control the outcome of this appeal. The offending probate order conclusively determined a disputed question of ownership in the certificate and held that the estate had no interest therein. This order was final and appealable, see Pratt v. Gerber, 330 So. 2d 552, 553 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) and an appeal should have been taken within thirty days of rendition. See also Fla. R.App.P. 9.110(b); Fla.R.P. & G.P. 5.100; Howard v. Baumer, 519 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); In re Estate of Baker, 327 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1976); In re Estate of Zimbrick, 453 So. 2d 1155, 1156 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
This appeal was filed well over three months beyond the thirty day limit so we conclude that we have no jurisdiction. This cause is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
FARMER, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
P.B. and B.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 709 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ting to the sufficiency of the order which adjudicated Appellants’ son dependent is time-barred. The order was rendered September 11, 1997, and the notice of appeal was not filed until October 22, 1997. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b); Estate of Schatz, 613 So. 2d 591, 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). With respect to the trial court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to withdraw their consent to dependency, the record conclusively disproves Appellants’ allegations that they did not understand that they were agreeing to an a…
-
In re the Est. OF Bobby Ray Lawhorn v. Lawhorn, 675 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See In re Estate of Schatz, 613 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); In re Estate of Barnett, 549 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); In re Estate of Parson, 570 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Pratt v. Gerber, 330 So. 2d 552, 553 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). See also Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(b); Fla.Prob.R.…
-
D.E. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 823 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…r was rendered in September, 1994. Any appeal of that order should have been taken within thirty days. Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b). Once more than thirty days has elapsed, the propriety of the dependency order is time-barred. See In re Estate of Schatz, 613 So. 2d 591, 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also P.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 709 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). But for this procedural bar, I would be sympathetic to the father’s assertion that he never knowingly and intelligently [*867] waived…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Michael R. Baker v. Baker, 327 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1976)
- In re Est. Of Mark Daniel Zimbrick v. Zimbrick, 453 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Pratt v. Gerber, 330 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Kimmel v. State, 519 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Howard v. Baumer, 519 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)