GEORGE TUERK, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN E. TUERK, DECEASED, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
KAREN TUERK, APPELLEE/CROSS-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.
The court affirmed the trial court's order prohibiting funding of a revocable trust during marital dissolution proceedings, holding that the personal representative's consent to the asset freeze order precluded any constitutional challenge after the decedent's death.
A party who consents to and affirms a trial court order freezing marital assets during dissolution proceedings cannot later challenge that order as an unconstitutional restraint on the right to devise property.
[1] A party who consents to an asset freeze order during marital dissolution proceedings waives any subsequent challenge to that order as an unconstitutional restraint on tes…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Tuerk agreed to a trial court order freezing his assets pending resolution of his marital dissolution action. Tuerk died before the dissolution w…
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 Dissipation Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George Tuerk, personal representative of the estate of John Tuerk, appeals the denial of his motion to determine trust disposition and final order of dismissal. The personal representative argues that during the course of John Tuerk’s marital dissolution proceedings the trial judge erred in prohibiting Tuerk from funding a revocable trust. In the dissolution action, there had been a hearing on allegations that Tuerk was attempting to dissipate marital assets, and the trial court had ruled that the assets of John Tuerk and his wife remain undistributed until such time as the court made a final determination of the respective rights of the parties or until further order of the court. See Gooding v. Gooding, 602 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Woodrum v. Woodrum, 590 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 565 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
John Tuerk agreed to abide by that order and never sought to have it revised. Tuerk died before the dissolution action was resolved. After Tuerk’s death, the personal representative filed the instant claim, arguing that the trial court’s conduct, outlined above, constituted an unconstitutional restraint of Tuerk’s right to devise his property. We need go no further than to review Tuerk’s consent and affirmation of the trial court’s order denying the trust funding to affirm the order on appeal. This determination moots the wife’s cross-appeal.
Accordingly, both orders under review are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 565 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Gooding v. Gooding, 602 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Woodrum v. Woodrum, 590 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)