PATRICIA S. SPOHRER AND CENTRAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, AS CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF C. N. SHELTON, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
CONSTANCE SHELTON ELLIOTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Estate administrators appealed a judgment quieting title to real property in favor of a defendant, seeking reimbursement for all property expenses paid by the estate and its predecessors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of only those expenses incurred by the estate administrators after a June 2, 1969 court order ($6,124.69), rejecting the claim for all historical expenses ($33,680.26).
The trial court correctly awarded reimbursement only for those amounts expended by the appellants pursuant to the June 2, 1969 court order, which totaled $6,124.69. The estate administrators were not entitled to recover all historical expenses totaling $33,680.26.
[1] A party seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred in preserving property is generally limited to recovering those expenses incurred after a court order mandates such pa…
[2] A court may limit recovery of property preservation expenses to amounts expended after a specific court order, even if expenses were incurred prior to that order.
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“Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff-appellants for $6,124.69 which represented only those amounts which had been expended by the plaintiff bank from 1969 through the date of the judgment quieting title in defendant's favor.”
Establishes that the trial court limited reimbursement to expenses incurred after the June 2, 1969 court order
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.N. Shelton died on March 15, 1965, leaving real property in Dade County. During his lifetime, Shelton instructed TAN Airlines (a corporation he subs…
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 Reimbursement Of Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellants seek review of a judgment in their favor for $6,124.69.
On May 22, 1968, plaintiff-appellants, Patricia S. Spohrer and Central Bank and Trust Company as co-administrators of the estate of C. N. Shelton, deceased, filed a complaint to quiet title to certain real property in Dade County, Florida. De fendant-appellee Constance Shelton Elliott, individually and as trustee for her children, counterclaimed to quiet title. The court tried the title issue and ruled in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs in their amended complaint had sought also reimbursement of expenses paid for the preservation of the subject property. The decedent, C. N. Shelton, allegedly had instructed TAN Airlines (a corporation which he substantially controlled) to pay the mortgage obligations as they became due, insurance payments, taxes, repairs, etc. on the subject property. After Mr. Shelton’s death on March IS, 1965, upon the instructions of Douglas Batchelor,1 the deceased’s executor, TAN Airlines continued to make the above payments. Finally, pursuant to court order dated June 2, 1969, the appellants began making these payments. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff-appellants for $6,124.69 which represented only those amounts which had been expended by the plaintiff bank from 1969 through the date of the judgment quieting title in defendant’s favor. Appellants sought $33,680.26, the total payments expended with respect to the subject property. Thus, this appeal followed.
Plaintiff-appellants contend it was error for the court below not to have awarded a judgment in their favor for all sums spent by the appellants and their predecessors for the benefit of the subject property by means of paying mortgages, taxes, insurance and repairs.
After having considered carefully the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel, we conclude that the trial judge was correct in awarding appellants $6,124.69 which represented those amounts expended by the appellants for the benefit of the subject property pursuant to the court order of June 2, 1969. Thus, no judicial error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. A director of TAN Airlines at the time.