THOMAS EDWARDS PEARSON AND CAROLYN RHODES, APPELLANTS,
v.
DIANE KLIPPSTEIN COBB, ET AL., 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.
In a dispute over estate distribution following the death of Adolf Klippstein, the appellate court affirmed a trial court order authorizing partial distribution of $19,000 to appellees from the estate proceeds, despite appellants' contentions that the distribution violated statutory requirements and was premature pending full estate administration.
The trial court did not err in authorizing the partial distribution of $19,000 to appellees. While a court should not take steps that prejudice parties' rights pending resolution of a legal dispute over property disposition, appellants failed to properly raise their statutory arguments below and did not establish that the partial distribution would jeopardize their interests.
[1] An appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.
[2] A trial court should take no steps that would prejudice parties' rights pending resolution of a legal dispute over property disposition.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where, as here, a legal dispute exists as to the disposition of property, the trial court should take no steps which would prejudice the parties' rights pending resolution of the dispute.”
Establishes the general principle that courts must be cautious about partial distributions when property disposition is disputed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdolf and Ruby Klippstein married in 1977. Adolf had two children (appellees Cobb and Hanna) from a prior marriage; Ruby had two children (appellants …
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 Raising Issues For The First Time On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Appellants Pearson and Rhodes appeal from an order authorizing distribution of $19,000.00 of the estate of Adolf Klippstein to appellees Cobb and Hanna.
Adolf and Ruby Klippstein were married in 1977. Adolf had two children, the appel-lees, by a prior marriage. Ruby likewise had two children, the appellants, by a prior marriage. Ruby predeceased Adolf.
A dispute exists as to whether the proceeds from the sale of real property owned by Adolf and Ruby Klippstein passed by will to a valid trust and then to the four children in equal shares or whether Adolf validly revoked the trust shortly before he died, retitled the property in his own name and it passed upon his death to his children, the appellees.
Appellants contend that the trial court violated section 733.802, Florida Statutes, by authorizing distribution of $19,000.00, nearly half of the net proceeds of the sale ($39,-107.57) where the estate has yet to be fully administered. Appellees counter, inter alia, that they are entitled at the very least to one-half of the net proceeds derived from the sale and that the partial distribution is warranted.
Where, as here, a legal dispute exists as to the disposition of property, the trial court should take no steps which would prejudice the parties’ rights pending resolution of the dispute. Having said this, however, there is nothing in the record provided which indicates that applicability of section 733.802, Florida Statutes, was raised below. Neither the motion seeking partial distribution nor the trial court order reference the statute. No responsive pleading challenging the sufficiency of the motion seeking partial distribution was apparently filed by the appellants nor is a transcript of the hearing below provided. An appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.
The issue of an improper partial distribution was raised in a motion for rehearing filed by the appellants but this motion contains no reference to section 733.802. The appellants claim in this motion that expenses, costs and fees have not yet been established but the record before this court does not indicate the nature or possible extent of these sums. It is entirely possible that these amounts are minimal and that the partial distribution leaves adequate funds for payment thereof without jeopardizing appellants’ claim to one-half of the funds. Appellants additionally argue that the trial court should have ordered the appellees to post a bond but again there is no indication that such request was made below. In sum, on this record, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in authorizing a partial distribution to appellees of $19,000.00.
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.