IN RE ESTATE OF GEORGE H. WARTMAN, JR. VIRGINIA WARTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET MASON WARTMAN, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE H. WARTMAN, JR., 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an order discharging an executrix, holding that no notice was required because she was the sole beneficiary and possessed all estate assets, thus waiving the need for formal notice under state statutes. The case involved a procedural history where the appeal was initially dismissed as untimely but later reinstated by the Supreme Court.
No, the executrix was not entitled to notice of her discharge. The relevant Florida statutes allowed for discharge without notice when the sole beneficiary possessed all estate assets and filed the appropriate waiver.
“the appellee was the sole beneficiary under the will; that she had in her possession, as executrix, all of the assets of the estate and upon filing the appropriate waiver, provided in F.S. § 734.22, F.S.A., no notice was required and the county judge was authorized to enter the order of discharge pursuant to the provision of F.S. § 734.23, F. S. A.”
This quote explains the factual and legal basis for the court's decision that no notice was required for the executrix's discharge.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee, Margaret Mason Wartman, was the executrix of her deceased husband's estate and the sole beneficiary. She possessed all estate assets. 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.
This cause originally came before this court on a motion to dismiss the appeal as being untimely filed, and the appeal was so dismissed. See In re Wartman Estate, Fla. App.1960, 118 So.2d 838. Said dismissal was reviewed upon certiorari by the Supreme Court of Florida, and resulted in an opinion quashing the opinion and decision of this court and reinstating the appeal. See: In re Wartman Estate, Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 600. Thereafter, upon the filing of briefs and application for oral argument, this matter was set for hearing before this court, at which time counsel for the respective parties waived the right to oral argument and submitted the matter on briefs.
The appellant seeks review of an order discharging the appellee as executrix of the estate of her deceased husband, upon the ground that she received no notice of said *660■discharge. It appears from the record that the appellee was the sole beneficiary under the will; that she had in her possession, as executrix, all of the assets of the estate and upon filing the appropriate waiver, provided in F.S. § 734.22, F.S.A., no notice was required and the county judge was authorized to enter the order of discharge pursuant to the provision of F.S. § 734.23, F.S. A. Therefore, the order of discharge was correct in all respects, and this appeal is without merit and the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of George H. Wartman v. Wartman, 128 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1961)
- In re Est. of George H. Wartman v. Wartman, 118 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)