Mullins v. Mullins

Mullins v. Mullins, --- So.3d --- (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)

This decision deals with the effect of an order determining homestead on a beneficiary's interest in the homestead property. Specifically, the Court considered whether a consent to the entry of an order determining homestead, where that order does not properly lay out the ownership interests in the property, is enough to actually alter the parties ownership interests. The Court held that it did not.

The decedent in question left her homestead to her three children, subject to a life estate for two of the three children for as long as they wanted to live there. The probate court entered an order determining homestead which stated that the homestead was devised in equal shares to the three children but failed to mention the life estates. The Court considered whether the homestead order in and of itself could eradicate the life estates. It held that because the consents to the homestead order were not formal agreements to modify the children's beneficial interests in the estate pursuant to F.S. 733.815 and the homestead order was not a title transaction under F.S. 712.01, the homestead order only confirmed that the children were entitled to the homestead exemption and nothing more.

Comments

  1. AnonymousApril 3, 2022 at 9:27 PM

    casino, poker room, blackjack, bingo
    casino, poker room, งานออนไลน์ blackjack, bingo poormansguidetocasinogambling.com room, blackjack, https://vannienailor4166blog.blogspot.com/ bingo room, goyangfc.com poker room, 출장샵 poker room, poker room, poker room, poker room, poker room,

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Goodstein v. Goodstein ,  263 So.3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository. Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order. Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions a...
Read more

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Malleiro v. Mori , 182 So.3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) This case serves as a lesson in rarely used words buried in the Florida Probate Code.  The Court was asked to determine whether an unsigned notarial will executed in Argentina was a valid will under the Florida Probate Code.  The Court ultimately held that because the Argentine will was unsigned, even though it was a notarial will, it was a noncupative will prohibited by the Florida Probate Code. The testator executed a valid will in New York distributing her real and personal property located in the United States.  Four months later, she executed a second will in Argentina.  The Argentine will was not executed with the usual formalities of American wills.  Instead, the testator orally pronounced her testamentary wishes to a notary who transcribed them in the presence of three witnesses.  The testator orally approved the typewritten will in the presence of the witnesses, and the notary signed and st...
Read more

Estate of McKenzie v. Hi Rise Crane, Inc.

  Estate of McKenzie through McIntosch v. Hi Rise Crane, Inc. , --- So.3d ---, 2021 WL 3672215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) The "relation back doctrine" as provided in F.S. 733.601 provides that a personal representative's powers "relate back in time to give acts by the person appointed, occurring before appointment and beneficial to the estate, the same effect as those occurring after appointment." Here, the nominated personal representative filed a workman's compensation petition for benefits on behalf of her deceased brother prior to her appointment as personal representative. The Judge of Compensation Claims dismissed her petition because she was not the personal representative when she filed the petition. The Court reversed, relying on Cunningham v. Florida Dep't of Child & Fams. , which held that, "it follows, from the fact that the plaintiff can amend to reflect his capacity as personal representative, that claims which are properly recoverable by...
Read more