IN RE ESTATE OF JACOB GUZE, A/K/A JACK GUZE, DECEASED
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 order on mandate was not contrary to the prior appellate court's mandate and opinion.
Following a prior appeal where the county judge was found to lack jurisdiction over an antenuptial agreement, the county judge vacated his order. The …
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 Antenuptial Agreement Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
In a prior appeal (In re Estate of Guze, Fla.App.1958, 109 So.2d 170) it was held that the county judge was without jurisdiction to test the validity of an antenuptial agreement. After the issuance of our mandate, the county judge entered an order vacating his prior order without prejudice to the right of the parties to test the validity of the agreement in a court of competent jurisdiction.
The appellant has taken an interlocutory appeal from “Order on Mandate” contending that the effect of said order was to set aside a portion of the prior order not mentioned in our opinion of reversal, which portion held that the widow had no dower interest in a certain life insurance policy. Since the question of the widow’s right to dower is subject to a determination by the circuit court* of the validity of the antenuptial agreement, it would be premature to make any finding as to a dower interest in the insurance policy. When the validity vel non of the antenup-tial agreement has been determined, that question may then be presented to the county judge for reconsideration.
Although this has been improperly designated as an interlocutory appeal (see Rules 4.2 and 4.4, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.) we have nevertheless considered the question raised because of the contention that the order sought to be reviewed was in violation of or contrary to this court’s mandate and opinion in the prior case. Inasmuch as we have concluded that the order of the court below is not contrary to or in violation of this court’s mandate in the prior case, the order appealed is affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shute v. Keystone State Bank & Mrs. Edward J. Hutson, 159 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…Mullen, 145 So. 2d 568 (Pla.App.2d, 1962) and Evin R. Welch & Co. v. Johnson, 138 So. 2d. 390 (Fla.App.2d, 1962). . Turner v. Turner, 132 So. 2d 345, 346 (Fla.App.2d, 1961). . Section 59.02(3), Florida Statutes, F;S,A„ . Cf. In re Estate of Guze, 114 So. 2d 212 (Fla.App.3d, 1959). . Evin R. Welch & Co. v. Johnson, supra, 138 So. 2d p. 394.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. OF Jacob Guze v. Guze, 109 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)