PATRICIA JUDY CONEFF, A/K/A JUDY COTTER CONEFF, APPELLANT,
v.
ASHLEY CONEFF, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY B. CONEFF, APPELLEE
PATRICIA JUDY CONEFF, A/K/A JUDY COTTER CONEFF, APPELLANT,
ASHLEY CONEFF, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY B. CONEFF, APPELLEE
970 So. 2d 862
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2007)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm, in all respects, but remand for correction of an apparent scrivener’s error in calculating the elective share. The sum used in calculating one-half of the $885,000 sales price of the home was $447,500, where the correct amount is $442,500.
STONE, MAY, JJ., and TUTER, JACK BEN, JR., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bynes v. State, 267 So. 3d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
-
Bynes v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). A rule 3.800(a) motion cannot be deemed impermissibly successive unless it raises a claim that has previously been considered on the merits. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 289-91 (Fla. 2003); Gunn v. State, 970 So. 2d 862, 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Here, the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sanction for filing “successive and repetitive” motions because Bynes did not raise a claim in his fourth rule 3.800(a) motion that had previously been adjudicat…