REVA ROTT, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY ROTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND HARRY ROTT, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID ROTT, 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.
This case involves a wife's attempt to set aside a contract between her deceased husband and his son regarding partnership assets. The wife alleged the contract allowed for a sale below value and that her husband and son conspired to hide assets from her dower rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error.
No, the appellant failed to prove a prima facie case. The appellate court found no reversible error in the trial court's decision.
“The cause was tried before the trial judge who found the plaintiff had failed to prove a prima facie case, and granted judgment for the defendants.”
This quote establishes the trial court's finding and the basis for the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Reva Rott, sued her step-son, Harry Rott, individually and as executor of her deceased husband's estate. She sought to invalidate a con…
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 Partnership Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from an adverse final decree. The appellant filed suit against her step-son individually and in his capacity as executor of her deceased husband’s estate, seeking a decree to set aside a contract made by her husband and his son relating to partnership assets consisting of real and personal property, under which contract the surviving partner could purchase the interest of the other partner for a price to be determined on a formula provided for in the contract.1 Five years after the contract was made, the *22plaintiff’s husband died. Plaintiff alleged certain facts on the basis of which she charged that the contract permitted sale at less than value, and that her late husband and his son had conspired to place a substantial part of the value of such property beyond her reach as dower. The cause was tried before the trial judge who found the plaintiff had failed to prove a prima facie case, and granted judgment for the defendants. On consideration of the record and briefs, we conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error and the decree appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.