S. E. TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
A. D. MERWIN, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JULIA M. TAYLOR, 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, holding that an order confirming a sale by an estate administrator, which was not appealed, could not be collaterally attacked years later. The court emphasized that such orders become absolute and are not subject to challenge after the time for appeal has passed.
No, an order confirming a sale made by an estate administrator, which was not appealed, cannot be collaterally attacked and set aside years after it became final. Such an order becomes absolute and is not subject to collateral attack.
“The petition constituted a collateral attack upon the order sought to be vacated and set aside.”
Establishes the nature of the petitioner's action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn administrator sold property of an estate under court order. The sale was confirmed by the county judge on December 16, 1937. The petitioner filed a…
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 Collateral Attack On Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal brings for review order of the Circuit Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for St. Lucie County, affirming the order of the county judge of that county denying petition wherein an order was sought to vacate and set aside the confirmation of a sale made by the administrator under order of the court on the 16th day of December, 1937.
The .petition was filed on April 3, 1940.
The petition constituted a collateral attack upon the order sought to be vacated and set aside. The order of the county judge had become absolute by the passage of time. The order of confirmation was not appealed from and has not been reversed, set aside or altered. Therefore, it is not now subject to collateral attack. See Mitchell v. Bogue, 142 Fla. 787, 196 Sou. 306; 11 R. C. L., paragraph 436, page 367, Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. J. Matt Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608, 98 Sou. 825; Lord v. Dowling Co., 52 Fla. 313, 42 Sou, 585; Gaines v. Russ, 60 Fla. 317, 53 Sou. 113; Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 490, 107 Sou. 625; Einstein, et al., v. Davidson, 35 Fla. 342, 17 Sou. 563; Kroier v. Kroier, 95 Fla. 865, 116 Sou. 753; Marick v. Merritt, 21 Fla. 21.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Adams, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Sur. Co. OF NEW York v. Andrews, 152 Fla. 638 (Fla. 1943)…469, 67 So. 67; Benedict v. Wilmarth, 46 Fla. 535, 35 So. 84; Dean v. Wilcoxon, 25 Fla. 980, 7 So. 163; Sanderson v. Sanderson’s Adm’rs, 17 Fla. 820; Ritch v. Bellamy, 14 Fla. 537. Counsel for appellants cite Taylor v. Martin, Adm’t., 145 Fla. 253, 198 So. 827; Mitchell v. Bogue, 142 Fla. 787, 196 So. 306; Perry v. Farber, 115 Fla. 410, 155 So. 839; Fieche v. R. E. Householder Co., 98 Fla. 627, 125 So. 2. These cases consider generally the rights of wards in real estate or personal property and are clearl…
-
Farrior v. State, 76 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1954)…, and has now been superseded by F.S.Sec. 920.02, F.S.A., supra, read “motions for new trial [*150] and in arrest of judgment shall be made in the time and manner prescribed for similar motions in civil cases.” And in Burnett v. State, 145 Fla. 220, 198 So. 827, we held that under Sec. 8413, supra, the rule laid down in the civil case of Florida East Coast R. Co. v. George, 91 Fla. 42, 107 So. 266, that an intervening Sunday falling within the four day period prescribed for filing a motion 'for new trial i…
Authorities Cited
- Kroier v. Kroier, 95 Fla. 865 (Fla. 1928)
- Ala. Hotel Co. v. The J. L. Mott Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608 (Fla. 1923)
- Sons v. Davidson, 35 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1895)
- Lord v. F. M. Dowling Co., 52 Fla. 313 (Fla. 1906)
- Gertrude Mitchell v. Lincoln C. Bogue cum testamento annexo of the Last Will and Testament of Frances Susan Wilson, 142 Fla. 787 (Fla. 1940)
- Gaines v. Russ, 60 Fla. 317 (Fla. 1910)
- Malone v. Earnest Meres, 91 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1926)