CHRISTOPHER A. SCHNEBELT, JEANA L. SCHNEBELT AND ERIC J. SCHNEBELT, APPELLANTS,
v.
JANE E. SCHNEBELT, USAA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, AND USAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 order allowing interpleader met the requirements for interpleader and affirmed that portion of the order. The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to address other issues raised by the children.
[1] A stakeholder facing competing claims to a fund may interplead the claimants when the stakeholder is a disinterested party at risk of multiple liability.
[2] An order granting a motion to interplead is a final appealable order only as to the stakeholder defendants.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA widow sued her deceased husband's children and USAA over the beneficiary designation of an IRA. USAA sought to interplead the funds due to conflicti…
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 Non-Final Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
This appeal involves a dispute between a widow and the children of her deceased husband by a former marriage. The widow’s complaint alleges that prior to her husband’s death she executed a document which authorized her husband to roll his pension with his employer into an IRA, and in return her husband made her the sole beneficiary of the IRA. She further alleged that about five years later, without her knowledge, her husband revoked his designation of her and designated his children as the beneficiaries of the IRA. She requested declaratory and other relief against the children and USAA entities with which the IRA was invested.
The USAA defendants moved to in-terplead the funds, alleging that they were disinterested innocent stakeholders, that both the widow and the children were demanding the funds, and that they were at risk of having to pay twice. The court granted the motion and the children appeal that order. We find that the requirements of interpleader were met here. Sea Management Serv. Ltd. v. Club Sea, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
The children are also attempting to use this appeal as a vehicle to have this court determine issues between the children and the widow. The order allowing interpleader, however, is a final appealable order only as to the USAA defendants. Miller v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 148 Fla. 1, 3 So. 2d 519 (1941). The children argue that the order is subject to non-final appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 at the present time because it (1) refuses to dissolve an injunction, (2) determines the right to immediate possession of property, or (3) determines liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief. We disagree that the order allowing interpleader can be properly characterized as any of the above.
We therefore affirm the order insofar as it allows the USAA defendants to interplead, but we are without jurisdiction to address the remaining issues raised by the children.
GLICKSTEIN, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
RED Beryl, Inc. v. Sarasota Vault Depository, Inc., 176 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…f the order on the count for interpleader is also nonfinal: it expressly declines to release Sarasota Vault from the suit or from liability. It is therefore not final as to either party, and it is not ap-pealable as such. Cf. Schnebelt v. Schnebelt, 710 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that the order granting inter-pleader was final as to the stakeholder, who was dismissed from the suit, and affirming the order insofar as it required the remaining parties to interplead but concluding that the court was…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 148 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1941)
- SEA Mgmt. Serv., Ltd. v. Club SEA, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)