ROBERT W. MASTERS, JR., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ROBERT W. MASTERS, APPELLANT,
v.
IDA BIESHUNS, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ESTELLE BIESHUNS MITCHELL, 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 the appeal was limited to the minor's claim, and since no claim was filed on behalf of the minor, the trial court's judgment was correct.
The minor's father, individually, filed a claim in a probate proceeding, but no claim was filed on behalf of the minor. The father's individual claim …
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 Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by one of the plaintiffs below, Robert W. Masters, Jr., a minor, by and through his father and next friend, Robert W. Masters, from a final judgment for the defendant, based upon defendant’s motion for a summary final judgment.
The style of the case on appeal incorrectly reflects Robert W. Masters, individually, as an appellant. The record reflects that the action of the father, Robert W. Masters, individually, against the defendant, is still pending on the merits in the trial court and the notice of appeal filed herein is for and on behalf of the minor, only.
5¿Ve have instructed our Clerk to correct the style of this case accordingly, to show the minor as the only appellant herein.
We have examined the claims of appellant for reversal and find them to be without merit. The trial judge was correct in his ruling that “no claim had ever been filed by or on behalf of Robert W. Masters, Jr.” The only claim filed, in the probate proceeding, was the claim for Robert W. Masters, the father. See Youngblood v. Taylor, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 503.
We do not consider the appellee’s cross assignment of error, as it relates to the propriety of an order of the trial judge in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the merits. Since the father’s *452case below is still pending on the merits and we have previously determined that he is not an actual appellant in this appeal, we do not think this issue is properly before us, at this time.
Affirmed.