STATE EX REL. JOHN RINGLING NORTH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN RINGLING, DECEASED, ET AL., RELATORS,
v.
HONORABLE GEORGE W. WHITEHURST AS JUDGE OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS
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 denied a writ of prohibition sought by John Ringling North and others challenging a circuit court's authority to appoint a receiver to remove executors appointed by the county probate judge. The Court clarified that probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over removal of executors, though circuit courts may appoint receivers for specific estate property as an ancillary equity remedy.
The circuit court lacks jurisdiction to appoint a receiver for the purpose of ousting or removing executors, as removal of executors falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the probate court. However, a circuit court may appoint a receiver over specific estate property as an ancillary remedy to preserve that property, provided the executor remains in their position until formally discharged by the probate court.
“The matter of ousting or removing executors is a matter within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the probate court under the provisions of the 1933 Probate Act. Such jurisdiction of the probate court may not be assumed or exercised by the court of chancery.”
Establishes the core holding that probate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over executor removal and circuit courts cannot exercise this power.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Ringling North, as executor of the estate of John Ringling (deceased), sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court judge from appoi…
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 Ancillary Receivership cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon consideration of the suggestion of above named relators for writ of prohibition:
The application for writ of prohibition will be denied because we cannot say there is any ground for equitable relief stated in the bill of complaint. We do not intend to intimate that we hold that the circuit court has jurisdiction to appoint receiver to supersede and oust the executors appointed by the county judge as judge of probate or to oust the jurisdiction of thp county judge to adjudicate questions exclusively in the jurisdiction of the probate court.
The writ of prohibition is denied.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J, J., concur.
On Application To Clarify Supreme Court’s Order
This cause is before us on application of respondent to clarify that portion of our order of December 3, 1940, wherein we said: “We do not intend to intimate that we hold that the circuit court has jurisdiction to appoint receiver to supercede and oust the executors appointed by the county judge as judge of probate.” ...
The matter of ousting or removing executors is a matter within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the probate court under the provisions of the 1933 Probate Act. Such jurisdiction of the probate court may not be assumed or exercised by the court of chancery. This is true, although the court of chancery may, as a step ancillary to exercise of some recognized equity jurisdiction over certain peculiar and particular property in the hands, of an administrator or executor, appoint a receiver to assume possession and control of that property because of a receivership of that particular property being necessary for its preservation as *561an asset in the hands of the administrator or executor. The administrator or executor must be recognized as continuing as such until discharge by the probate court.
Where administrators or executors are charged with being guilty of fraud, mismanagement or waste in the administration of an estate the probate court has complete power and jurisdiction to determine such questions subject to review by the circuit court and then by the Supreme Court under the provisions of the 1933 Probate Act.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs specially.
(concurring). — It is my view that a court of equity is without jurisdiction to appoint a receiver for the estate of a decedent where it is clearly shown by the testimony that the representative of the estate commits waste, mismanages the estate and is guilty of fraud in connection with the management of the decedent’s estate. The jurisdiction of the settlement of estates of decedents is by Section 17 of'Article V of the Constitution of Florida conferred on the county judge. See Tyre v. Wright, 144 Fla. 90, 197 So. 846; Pournelle v. Baxter, 142 Fla. 517, 195 So. 163; Crosby v. Burleson, 142 Fla. 443, 195 So. 202.
If waste, fraud and unlawful management of the estate of a decedent is committed by a representative of an estate, this fact, in my judgment, should be brought to the attention of the county judge by a petition seeking a revocation of the letters testamentary, and after the issues are settled, testimony should be taken thereon before the county judge and if the testimony is sufficient, an order revoking the issuance of letters testamentary should be made and entered and a substitute representative should be appointed; the right to appeal from said order to the circuit court is authorized as provided for by Section 11 of Article V of the Constitution *562of Florida. See County Com. Hillsborough County v. Savage, 63 Fla. 337, 58 So. 835. The case of Opitz v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 469, 67 So. 67, has not been overlooked.
Therefore, I concur specially in the majority opinion herein.
Buford, J., concurs.
Chapman, J.
(concurring). — It is my view that a court of equity is without jurisdiction to appoint a receiver for the estate of a decedent where it is clearly shown by the testimony that the representative of the estate commits waste, mismanages the estate and is guilty of fraud in connection with the management of the decedent’s estate. The jurisdiction of the settlement of estates of decedents is by Section 17 of'Article V of the Constitution of Florida conferred on the county judge. See Tyre v. Wright, 144 Fla. 90, 197 So. 846; Pournelle v. Baxter, 142 Fla. 517, 195 So. 163; Crosby v. Burleson, 142 Fla. 443, 195 So. 202.
If waste, fraud and unlawful management of the estate of a decedent is committed by a representative of an estate, this fact, in my judgment, should be brought to the attention of the county judge by a petition seeking a revocation of the letters testamentary, and after the issues are settled, testimony should be taken thereon before the county judge and if the testimony is sufficient, an order revoking the issuance of letters testamentary should be made and entered and a substitute representative should be appointed; the right to appeal from said order to the circuit court is authorized as provided for by Section 11 of Article V of the Constitution of Florida. See County Com. Hillsborough County v. Savage, 63 Fla. 337, 58 So. 835. The case of Opitz v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 469, 67 So. 67, has not been overlooked.
Therefore, I concur specially in the majority opinion herein.
Buford, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. OF Lizzie Monks v. THE Fla. Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville, 155 Fla. 240 (Fla. 1944)…ereof and the entry of an order of discharge of the legal representative. See Crosby v. Burleson, 142 Fla. 443, 195 So. 202; Pournelle v. Baxter, 142 Fla. 517, 195 So. 163; Tyre v. Wright, 144 Fla. 90, 197 So. 846; State ex rel. North v. Whitehurst, 145 Fla. 559, 1 So. (2nd) 175; In re: Estate of Niernsee, 147 Fla. 388, 2 So. (2nd) 737; Thompson v. Harris, 150 Fla. 471, 7 So. (2nd) 854; Wells v. Menn, 154 Fla. 173, 17 So. (2nd) 217. The contention that Section 108 of Chapter 16103, Acts of 1933 — Section 7…
-
Thompson v. Harris, 150 Fla. 471 (Fla. 1942)…estate of a decedent. See Bill v. Stevens, 144 Fla. 307, 196 So. 811; Tyre v. Wright, 144 Fla. 90, 197 So. 846; Pournelle v. Baxter, 142 Fla. 517, 195 So. 163; Crosby v. Burleson, 142 Fla. 443, 195 So. 202; State ex rel. North v. Whitehurst, 145 Fla. 559, 1 So. (2nd) 175. [*475] The question posed for adjudication by the court in the original answer filed by Rose B. Adams (and the testimony in support thereof) was whether or not Rose B. Adams and Fred W. Adams on the date "of the death of Fred W.…
-
Krivitsky v. NYE, 152 Fla. 614 (Fla. 1943)…tlement of estates of decedents and minors on the county judge. .See Crosby v. Burleson, 142 Fla. 443, 195 So. 202; Pournelle v. Baxter, 142 Fla. 517, 195 So. 163; Tyre v. Wright, 144 Fla. 90, 197 So. 846; State ex rel. North, et al., v. Whitehurst, 145 Fla. 559, 1 So. (2nd) 175. We do not rule on the question of whether or not the alleged action is local or transitory; neither do we rule on the legal sufficiency of the bill of complaint. The challenged order of September 11, 1942, is the sole question pre…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crosby v. Elta Burleson, 142 Fla. 443 (Fla. 1940)
- Hines v. State, 142 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1940)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Hillsborough Cnty. v. Tucker Savage, 63 Fla. 337 (Fla. 1912)
- Tyre v. Wright, 144 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1940)
- Pournelle v. Baxter, 142 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1940)
- Opitz v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1914)