IN RE ESTATE OF GREGG MAXCY, DECEASED. JESSIE L. MAXCY, AS CO-ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GREGG MAXCY, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
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.
Interlocutory administrative and procedural orders in an estate administration are not subject to appellate review.
Following the death of the decedent, his administratrix resigned and successor co-administrators were appointed. One co-administrator was authorized t…
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 Maxcy, to share substantial properties. Miss Charlotte Varena, an employee of the deceased, was duly appointed administra-trix.
Hugh Maxcy died and his widow, La-Fay e Maxcy filed a petition for the removal of Miss Varena as administratrix. During *447tile 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.
The court then appointed Jessie L. Maxcy and George Stulting as successor co-administrators of the estate, and their bond was fixed at $25,000. They duly qualified, and the court, upon the request of Jessie L. Maxcy entered an order authorizing the said George Stulting to act alone as such personal representative except in matters relating to the purchase and sale of assets of the estate. Jessie L. Maxcy disapproved of some of the actions of George Stulting and petitioned for his removal.
This appeal is from three orders of the probate court as follows: The first order declines to dispense with appraisers. The second orders denies the petition of co-administrator Jessie L. Maxcy to remove her co-administrator George Stulting; and the third order denies both co-administrator’s request to dispense with further administration of the estate.
All three 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
-
Bennett's Leasing, Inc. v. First St. Mortg. Corp., 870 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ly substituting fiduciaries is appealable. See Tyler v. Huggins, 175 So. 2d 239, 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (disallowing appeal from an "order ... setting aside and declaring void ab initio letters of administration”); In re Estate of Maxcy v. Stulting, 165 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (disallowing appeal from an order accepting the resignation of the administratrix). At issue is whether the order substituting assignees is final, not whether it was itself appealable, before the thirty days for appeal ran.…
-
In re Est. of Michael R. Baker v. Baker, 327 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1976)…supra, and In re Noland’s Estate, supra, but the principle is the same in considering the finality of the right which may be involved. Neither do we agree that similar language referring to rights of any “party” in the second In Re Maxcy’s Estate, 165 So. 2d 446 (Fla.App.2d 1964), limits the right of appeal to matters such as claims and estate assets. Such a narrow interpretation would be a denial of basic rights of review not contemplated by the rule. Certainly an administrator or executor is likewise a “p…
-
In re the Est. OF Rose Bierman, 587 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…sonal representative to file an inventory of assets and an amended final return); In re Peterson's Estate, 73 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1954) (order denying a motion to dismiss a petition for construction of certain provision of a will); In re Maxcy’s Estate, 165 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (orders accepting resignation of fiduciary and requiring her to complete accounting and denying approval of account); In re Dorsey’s Estate, 114 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). It appears that the case at bar is more akin to this c…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- In re Est. of Gregg Maxcy v. Stulting, 165 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)