STEPHEN MADDRIE, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Bryan v. Dethlefs, 959 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
  …703 So. 2d 487, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The meaning applied, however, cannot lead to absurd results. Roberts v. Sarros, 920 So. 2d 193, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Additionally, the law favors the early vesting of estates. Lumbert v. Estate of Carter, 867 So. 2d 1175, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(citing Sorrels v. McNally, 89 Fla. 457, 105 So. 106 (1925)). As this Court stated in Estate of Rice v. Greenberg, 406 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), any doubt as to whether an interest is vested or contingent should be reso…
• Timmons v. Ingrahm, 36 So. 3d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
  …y judgment in favor of the co-trustees. This appeal followed. The trial court’s decision was based on the interpretation of the language set forth in Frank Sr.’s will and, accordingly, our standard of review is de novo. Lumbert v. Estate of Carter, 867 So. 2d 1175, 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In construing a will or testamentary trust, the intent of the testator or settlor should prevail and effect be given to his wishes. First Nat’l Bk. of Fla. v. Moffett, 479 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In determini…
• Bernadette Lauritsen v. Wallace, 67 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
  …is a question of law as to whether the decedent’s forgiveness of the promissory note in his will could legally take effect before payment of the obligations and expenses of the estate. The standard of review is de novo. Lumbert v. Estate of Carter, 867 So. 2d 1175, 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Timmons v. Ingrahm, 36 So. 3d 861, 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). The promissory note executed by Brian Wallace to his parents was unconditional. There was no provision in the note that Brian’s obligation was to be cancelled up…

Authorities Cited

• Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
• Hernandez-Molina v. State, 860 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)