IN RE ESTATE OF JULIA F. PFEIFFER, DECEASED. GENEVA MCWILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
MOYSE B. SMITH, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JULIA F. PFEIFFER, 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 addresses will revocation proceedings that had been litigated multiple times through Florida's appellate courts. The court affirmed the trial judge's dismissal of the seventh petition to revoke the will of Julia F. Pfeiffer, finding that the appellant was bound by prior proceedings and the petition was identical to previously dismissed petitions.
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the appellant was bound by the prior proceedings because she had actual notice of them, and the dismissal was consistent with established Florida law prohibiting successive, identical petitions to revoke probate.
[1] A petition to revoke probate, identical in all material respects to a previously dismissed petition, may be dismissed.
[2] A party is bound by prior proceedings in a matter if they had actual notice of those proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it appearing that the present Petition to Revoke is identical in all material respects to the previous Petition to Revoke filed by IVA DAVIS and dismissed with prejudice by this Court's Order of August 21, 1970, and is identical in nature with the five previous Petitions to Revoke the Probate of the Will of the Decedent”
Establishes the basis for dismissal—the current petition is identical to previously filed and dismissed petitions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulia F. Pfeiffer's will was admitted for probate. Seven petitions to revoke the probate of the will were filed. The current petition filed by Geneva …
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 Petition For Revocation Of Probate cases and more on FLexlaw
This will revocation proceedings has been before the appellate courts of this State several times. See: Miami Bay Oaks Soroptimist Home for Aged, Inc. v. Smith, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 444, cert. denied, Allamong v. Smith, Fla.1969, 232 So.2d 175 and Miami Bay Oaks Soroptimist Home for Aged, Inc. v. Smith, Fla.1969, 232 So.2d 179; Davis v. Smith, Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 211. See also: In Re Pfeiffer’s Will, 1970, 34 Fla.Supp. 132. The petition for revocation in the instant action was the seventh one filed, addressed to the will admitted for probate and previously reviewed in Miami Bay Oaks Soroptimist Home for Aged, Inc. v. Smith, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 444. The order under review reads, in part, as follows:
* * * * * *
“ * * * it appearing that the present Petition to Revoke is identical in all material respects to the previous Petition to Revoke filed by IVA DAVIS and dismissed with prejudice by this Court’s ■Order of August 21, 1970, and is identical in nature with the five previous Petitions to Revoke the Probate of the Will of the Decedent dated November 10, 1966, which have been previously filed, and after trial of all the issues therein, the various Petitions to Revoke Probate were each denied and such Order was then appealed to the District Court of Appeal, Third District and the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, and said Order of the Probate Court in this cause was held valid. * * * ”
******
The appellant puts great stress on this court’s opinion in In Re Estate of Dalton, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 264. We find this case to be distinguishable from the instant cause for several reasons, among which are that the appellant McWilliams was bound by the prior proceedings in this matter because of actual notice of same. Second, Sigley’s point [referred to in the cited case] was whether or not Sigley who did not receive the proper notice to shorten the time for filing a petition for revocation was bound thereby. This is not the issue in the case sub judice.
The action of the trial judge was consistent with the prior decisions of this court and the following authorities. Meyer v. Fogg’s Exr., Fla.1857, 7 Fla. 292; In Re Barret’s Estate, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 125; State ex rel. Ashby v. Haddock, Fla.1962, *371149 So.2d 552; Biederman v. Cheatham, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 538; State ex rel. Booth v. Byington, Fla.1965, 178 So.2d 1; In Re Tim’s Estate, Fla.1965, 180 So.2d 161; In Re True’s Will, 1968, 31 Fla.Supp. 1; Strickland v. Peters, 5th Cir. 1941, 120 F.2d 53; Compare In Re Meyer’s Estate, 69 S.D. 339, 10 N.W.2d 516. Therefore, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (17 total)
- In re Est. of Edward Biederman v. Cheatham, 161 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Strickland v. Peters, 120 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1941)
- State of Fla. ex rel. v. Honorable Page Haddock, 149 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1962)
- In re Est. of Ann v. Dalton, 206 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- State of Fla. ex rel. v. Honorable John S. Byington, 178 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)
- Meyer v. Muscow B. Fogg, 7 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1857)
- In re Barret's Estate, 40 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1949)
- In re Est. of Jacob TIM v. Fishel Rudawski, 180 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1965)
- Miami BAY Oaks Soroptimist Home FOR the Aged, Inc. v. Moyse B. Smith, 224 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- In re True's Will, 31 Fla. Supp. 1 (Dade Cty. J. Ct. 1968)