IN RE ESTATE OF MADELON C. REID, DECEASED
This is an appeal from an order allowing fees to the named executor and his attorneys for services rendered in the probate and will contest proceedings concerning a will which was held to be void because of undue influence. See In re Reid’s Estate, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 342. The appellant — the sole beneficiary of a second will, which was admitted to probate— contends that the award of fees was not authorized. This contention is without merit. See Watts v. Newport, 151 Fla. 209, 9 So.2d 417 (1942); In re Graham’s Estate, 156 Fla. 421, 23 So.2d 485 (1945); and Williams v. Kane, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 603. Inasmuch as the record does not reveal that the lower court abused its discretion in awarding the fees herein, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. OF Mary C. W. Hand. Alice Frances Wolf v. Ahlman, 475 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…es to proponents, see, e.g., In re Estate of Whitehead, 287 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1973); Williams v. Kane, 88 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1956); In re Estate of Weinstein, 339 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 351 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1977); In re Estate of Reid, 182 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), are inapposite because either there was no wrongdoing in procuring the will, or any wrongdoing was perpetrated by someone other than the proponent. In the case before us, the proponent has been found to be the wrongdoer. . In th…
Authorities Cited
- Watts v. Newport, 151 Fla. 209 (Fla. 1942)
- In re Est. of Madelon C. Reid, 138 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- In re the Est. of Letitia v. Graham, 156 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1945)
- Williams v. Kane, 88 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1956)