DIANA SLADEK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT OF TIFFANY SLADEK, CHARLES GIFFORD, ROBERT MORRIS AND ROBERT BOYAR, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHRISTINE L. LAMBERTUS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FLORIDA ESTATE OF LEONARD M. BOYAR, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding no clear error in the factual findings.
Beneficiaries sued the personal representative of an estate for maladministration. The trial court conducted a non-jury trial and found in favor of th…
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 Self-Dealing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After a nine day non-jury trial concerning claims by beneficiaries of maladministration on the part of the personal representative, the trial court entered an extensive order finding in favor of the personal representative on all issues raised. We conclude that the trial court’s order should be affirmed.
We have reviewed the testimony, which is sharply disputed as to the various transactions involved in the estate. Moreover, the personal representative put on expert testimony that her administration of the estate did not fall below the standard of care for a fiduciary, while the beneficiaries had their own expert who said that it did.
The trial court found that the personal representative’s conduct did not demonstrate “bad faith, self-dealing, conflicts of interest, or breach of fiduciary duty....” The will of the decedent had given the personal representative “absolute discretion” to distribute the decedent’s property and “to compromise or abandon any claims in favor of or against the estate.” The court concluded that the objections were as to matters which were judgment calls for the personal representative.
Despite the appellants’ contentions to the contrary, we cannot conclude that the findings of fact made by the trial court were clearly erroneous or without any evidentiary support. See Oceanic Int'l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We therefore affirm the final judgment.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Comprehensive Health Ass'n v. Gerri A. Carmichael, 706 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…etent evidence. However, it was defendants’ burden to prove that coverage was excluded. As to this issue, we cannot state that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence. See Sladek v. Lambertus, 667 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Markham, 632 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Oceanic Int’l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Finally, we note that defendants’ brief raises the applicability of the…
Authorities Cited
- Oceanic Int'l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)