JEROME C. KOS, APPELLANT,
v.
ADRIENNE K. ABRISCH, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF SOPHIE B. KOS, 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.
Jerome Kos appealed three probate orders denying his petitions for accounting and production of assets, and denying his motion for rehearing and discovery. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the orders were non-appealable interlocutory orders that did not qualify for certiorari review.
The orders of July 3 and October 7, 1997 are non-appealable interlocutory orders and do not qualify for certiorari review. The appeal of the November 12, 1997 order is dismissed insofar as it denies rehearing and discovery regarding nonprobate assets, but the portion quashing service of process is affirmed as proper due to pleading deficiencies.
[1] Orders denying a petition for an accounting of assets not in the probate estate are non-appealable interlocutory orders.
[2] Orders denying a petition for production of assets, construed as a request for an accounting of financial affairs, are non-appealable interlocutory orders.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the orders at issue are non-appealable interlocutory orders, and they are not appropriate for review by certiorari”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court orders cannot be appealed because they are interlocutory and do not meet certiorari requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe probate court issued three orders: (1) July 3, 1997 order denying Kos's petition for accounting of pre-death assets and granting the personal repr…
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 Petition For Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Appellant, Jerome C. Kos, appeals the rulings in three probate orders. We dismiss the appeal, because the orders at issue are non-appealable interlocutory orders, and they are not appropriate for review' by certiorari.
The order of July 3, 1997, denied appellant’s petition for an accounting of assets in existence prior to the decedent’s death, which did not come into the probate estate. The order also granted appellee’s motion to dismiss, with leave to appellant to serve an amended petition to revoke probate, and to serve amended pleadings, possibly to include a petition for an accounting, or to file an objection to the inventory previously filed by the personal representative. The order of October 7, 1997, denied appellant’s petition for production of assets, which the probate court construed as a request for an accounting of the decedent’s financial affairs for the preceding nine years. The order of November 12, 1997, denied appellant’s motion for rehearing, motion to amend, and motion to permit limited discovery. This order also granted appellee’s motion to quash notice of taking deposition duces tecum and the subpoena issued thereto.
The portions of the appeal relating to the orders of July 3, and October 7, 1997, are dismissed, because the orders are non-appealable interlocutory orders, neither of which qualify to be considered for certiorari review. We recognize that the order of October 7, 1997, contains a statement suggesting the probate judge may have believed, albeit incorrectly, that he was without jurisdiction to decide some of the adversarial issues appellant attempted to raise.
Nevertheless, we conclude the probate court’s denial of the petition for production of assets was proper on the existing record. The appeal of the November 12, 1997, order is dismissed insofar as the order denies rehearing of the petition for an accounting and discovery as to nonpro-bate assets of the estate, because the ruling was based on the deficiencies in the existing pleadings and status of the case. Further, the order does not finally determine the rights of either party with regard to the probate estate. While the portion of the order which quashed service of process may be appealable, see RD & G Leasing, Inc. v. Stebnicki, 626 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), we affirm the probate court’s ruling in this regard, due to the deficiencies in the pleadings.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
ERVIN, J., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.