IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARY SHAMBOW, W. L. SHAMBOW, JOHN P. SHAMBOW, MARY J. HELM, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, CARL H. HELM, AND LESTER G. SHAMBOW,
v.
GEORGE H. SHAMBOW, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARY SHAMBOW, DECEASED
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 court held that the judgment of the circuit court, which affirmed the county judge's rulings, was not disturbed and therefore affirmed.
Following a prior appeal, the county judge took additional testimony, appellants petitioned to charge appellee with rent, and demanded a jury trial wh…
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 Implied Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a companion case to Shambow v. Shambow this day filed. A full statement of this case appears in our opinion filed on a former appeal. Shambow v. Shambow, 149 Fla. 278, 5 So. (2nd) 454. When the mandate went down the county judge proceeded to take additional testimony agreeable to our opinion. Subsequently appellants filed a petition to charge appellee with rent and other charges and thereafter demanded a jury trial on appellee’s claim which demand was disallowed. The county judge allowed the claim of appellee’s in the sum of $5488.14 and ordered the same paid and denied the petition of appellants, to charge appellee with rent and other charges. Upon the failure of the circuit court to disturb such rulings the judgment of the circuit court is appealed here.
Taking up for consideration this case where we left off on its former appearance here, the question arises whether the *763appellee has proven his claim. We have considered the evidence and find it ample to sustain the judgment.
It is urged that it was erroneous to allow the claim for services rendered previous to within three years of the mother’s death. Such is not the law because the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the debt is due and in this case no money was due until after the mother’s death.
It is claimed that appellants had a constitutional right to a jury trial in a court of competent jurisdiction. It is fundamental that constitutional rights which are personal may be waived. Waiver may be expresed or implied. We do not decide the question, however, because the history of this litigation, as revealed by the records on appeals here, shows most clearly that appellants waived whatever rights they may have had.
The judgment is affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Chames v. DeMAYO, 972 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2007)…tead exemption. We do not agree, however, that such an inconsistency exists. It is true that we recently noted that “most personal constitutional rights may be waived.” In re Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B), 939 So. 2d at 1038; see also In re Shambow’s Estate, 153 Fla. 762, 15 So. 2d 837, 837 (1943) (“It is fundamental that constitutional rights which are personal may be waived.”). However, an individual cannot waive a right designed to protect both the individual and the public. See, e.g., Coastal Caisson Drill Co. v…
-
Woolf v. Reed, 389 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…e those interests are jeopardized, and where the acting representative, if any, will not or cannot defend them. See In re Estate of Herlan, 209 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1968); Shambow v. Shambow, 5 So. 2d 454, 149 Fla. 278 (1942), reviewed on other grounds, 15 So. 2d 837, 153 Fla. 762 (1943); Fasel v. Cox, 128 So. 33, 99 Fla. 968 (1930); Edmonson v. Frank J. Rooney, Inc., 171 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). An administrator ad litem is an officer of the court, insofar as is every attorney certified to practice there…
-
Schenkel v. The Atl. Nat'l Bank OF Jacksonville, 141 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…the law is that the period of limitations does not begin to run, in the absence of a repudiation of the contract by one of the parties, until the death of the promisor, for the reason that the debt is not due until that time. In re Shambow’s Estate, 153 Fla. 762, 15 So. 2d 837. 57 Am.Jur., Wills, Sec. 182, p. 160. Annotations, 69 A.L.R. 166, 106 A.L.R'. 764. Moreover, the fact that the express contract may be an oral rather than a written one does not affect the validity of the obligation. See Berger v. Jac…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shambow v. Shambow, 149 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1942)