T. J. MCKEOWN
v.
E. M. KELLY, ET AL.
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 Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decree annulling a will and providing for partition of the decedent's estate. The reversal was necessitated by the death of the widow after the appeal was taken, which changed the legal status of her dower interest and required recalculation of the heirs' rights in the estate.
The decree is reversed and remanded because the widow's death eliminates her dower interest, allowing the entire estate to be partitioned among the heirs of Thomas McKeown (who now include the widow's heirs as co-owners with equal rights) rather than being subject to the widow's life estate.
“The decree provided for awarding the widow a dower interest in the decedent's property, which under the law in force at the death of Thomas McKeown in 1927 was a life interest in one-third of the land and a portion of the personalty.”
Establishes the legal entitlement that existed at the decedent's death and governed the trial court's decree.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas McKeown died in 1927, leaving a widow, several children, and a grandchild (daughter of a deceased son). McKeown's will was probated with his so…
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 Probate Of Will cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears that Thomas McKeown died ■leaving a widow and several children, als'o one grandchild who is the daughter of a deceased son. Apparently the widow is the mother of all the children of the decedent. Some time after the death of Thomas McKeown a kill was probated as his last will and testament, one of the testator’s sons being named and qualified as executor. Later the bill of complaint herein to annul the will and for an accounting and partition of the property was filed against the son who had been appointed executor under the will, the widow and the testator’s heirs being complainants. Apparently the testator’s property here involved included his' homestead real estate. The court decreed as' prayed, and the defendant appealed. The appeal taken to this Court *762from the final decree is but a step in the cause. At the bar of the court here it was stated by counsel for all parties that since the appeal herein was taken, the decedent’s' widow, one of the complainants, has died.
The decree provided for awarding the widow a dower interest in the decedent’s property, which under the law in force at the death of Thomas McKeown in 1927 was a life interest in one-third of the land and a portion of the personalty.
In the decree the partition was to be made subject to the widow’s' dower interest. As the widow is no longer living, and no will of hers being involved, the entire estate may now be subject to be partitioned among the heirs of Thomas McKeown and his widow, who apparently are the ’same persons with equal rights in the property.
To that end the decree is reversed and the caus'e remanded for appropriate proceedings as the parties may be advised as to their rights for partition and an accounting.
Reversed for appropriate proceedings.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nell Weed v. Knox, 157 Fla. 896 (Fla. 1946)…aking a child’s part, in which case she is counted as a child and takes an interest in fee, and thus becomes a tenant in coparcenary with the children of her husband. Appellant also cites McEwen v. Larson, 136 Fla. 1, 185 So. 866; McKeown v. Kelly, 116 Fla. 761, 156 So. 713; Moore v. [*900] Price, 98 Fla. 276, 123 So. 768, and Christopher v. Mungen, 61 Fla. 513, 55 So. 223, at page 226; but as we read these cases they are not in point here. Counsel for appellant very frankly admits that the general rule,…