IN RE ESTATE OF GREGG MAXCY, DECEASED. CHARLOTTE VARENA AND JESSIE L. MAXCY, AS CO-ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GREGG MAXCY, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGE STULTING, AS CO-ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GREGG MAXCY, 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 interlocutory orders in estate administration are not subject to appellate review.
An administratrix resigned during a hearing on her removal. The court accepted her resignation but required an accounting. The court then denied appro…
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 Estate Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
Gregg Maxcy departed this life intestate on August 10, 1960, a resident of Highlands County, Florida. He left surviving a widow, Jessie L. Maxcy, and a son Hugh Max-cy, to share substantial properties. Miss Charlotte Varena, an employee of the deceased, was duly appointed administratrix.
Hugh Maxcy died and his widow, La-Faye Maxcy filed a petition for the removal of Miss Varena as administratrix. During the hearing on said petition, Miss Varena resigned and the court accepted her resignation but required her to remain under bond pending the filing of a final report of her administration of the estate and the approval thereof by the court.
*446This appeal is from an order accepting the resignation of the administratrix, Charlotte Varena, and requiring the said former •administratrix to file a complete accounting and from an order denying approval of the •accounting filed by the former administra-trix, and requiring her within a certain time to file a full and correct account of the affairs of the deceased during the period she served as administratrix.
Both of these orders are interlocutory and are administrative and procedural and do not finally determine the rights of any party in the administration of the estate ■of the deceased. Such orders are not subject to review by an appellate court. Section 732.15, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Article V, sections 4 and 5, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. This court has so held in In re Hill’s Estate, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 462, and in Chapman v. Campbell, Fla.App. 1959, 114 So.2d 430.
Accordingly, ‘the appeal is dismissed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Gregg Maxcy v. Stulting, 165 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
-
In re Est. of Earl B. Rogers, 199 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…r 18, 1962, and other intervening orders preliminary to final judgment were administrative and procedural. As such they were not appealable in that they did not finally determine the rights of any of the parties. In re Estate of Maxcy, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 445 and 446. Accordingly, the order directing distribution dated February 25, 1966, is affirmed, and the court declines to consider the Certified Question. Affirmed. CROSS, J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Varena v. Stulting, 169 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1964)…Appeal quashed without opinion. 165 So. 2d 445.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Gregg Maxcy v. Stulting, 165 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- In re Est. of John T. Hill, Sr. v. Dolly B. Hill and Sole Legatee, 114 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- D'Agostino v. Jackson, 114 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- In re Est. of Ezekiel Campbell Dorsey v. Campbell, 114 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)