DOUGLAS STALLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRISON WILLIFORD, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAMELA LYNN WILLIFORD, DECEASED, 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.
The court held that the circuit court abused its discretion by appointing the decedent's father as personal representative when the heirs had selected another person who was not shown to be unfit.
The decedent died intestate leaving two minor children. The children, through their guardians, selected Douglas Stalley as personal representative. Th…
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 Personal Representative Appointment cases and more on FLexlaw
Pamela Lynn Williford died in 2008, leaving two minor children as the sole heirs of her intestate estate. Douglas Stalley was tendered by the children as a suitable personal representative, but the circuit court appointed Williford’s father, Harrison Williford, instead. This appointment was contrary to the statute prescribing the order of preference for appointment of a personal representative in this case. Accordingly, we reverse.
The statute, section 733.301, Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the following order of preference in appointment of a personal representative of an intestate estate:
1. The surviving spouse.
2. The person selected by a majority in interest of the heirs.
3.The heir nearest in degree.
§ 733.301(l)(b).
There was no surviving spouse in this case. Douglas Stalley was the person selected by both heirs, acting through the guardians of their property as authorized under section 733.301(2). Thus, Stalléy should have been appointed unless otherwise disqualified. Cf. §§ 733.302, 303 (providing qualifications for personal representative); In re Estate of Snyder, 333 So.2d 519, 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (holding, under earlier version of statute, that court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint person with statutory preference where he lacked “the qualities and characteristics necessary to properly perform the duties”).
There was a complete absence of evidence to suggest that Stalley was unfit to serve. Thus, the court abused its discretion by appointing the decedent’s father rather than the representative chosen by-the heirs.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND and KHOUZAM, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Long v. Willis, 100 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…qualities and characteristics,’ the court has discretion to refuse to make the appointment.” Garcia, 954 So. 2d at 658 (citing Padgett v. Estate of Gilbert, 676 So. 2d 440, 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)). This case is distinct from Stalley v. Williford, 50 So. 3d 680, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), where this court held that the probate court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint the personal representative selected by the decedent’s two minor children through the guardians of their property. In Stalley, the two…
-
Long v. Willis, 113 So. 3d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…nable time. [*83] Second, the probate court found that Mr. Umsted was not a suitable person to serve as personal representative because he had a conflict of interest. We review the probate court’s order for abuse of discretion. Stalley v. Williford, 50 So. 3d 680, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); DeVaughn v. DeVaughn, 840 So. 2d 1128, 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). III. DISCUSSION A. The Reasonable Time Issue In our earlier opinion, this court said that “the probate court had authority and should have allowed [Renee] a…
Authorities Cited
- In re the Est. of Josephine Johnson Snyder, 333 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)