DORIS BURDICK, APPELLANT,
v.
ISADORE BURDICK, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL BURDICK, 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 court reversed a judgment requiring the widow to return $44,155.72 paid under a prior final order, holding that a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540 stated no colorable grounds and the trial court lacked authority to modify the final order nearly four years later.
A trial court may not substantially modify a final probate order nearly four years after entry by requiring disgorgement of funds paid thereunder via a motion for relief from judgment that states no colorable grounds under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540.
[1] A final probate order that has not been appealed and has become final cannot be substantially modified years later through a motion for relief from judgment that lacks co…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe personal representative paid $44,155.72 to the decedent's widow pursuant to a final court order dated November 21, 1977, which was never appealed.…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.540 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in a probate proceeding below on September 16, 1981, wherein the personal representative of a decedent’s estate [appel-lee Isadore Burdick] is authorized to recover $44,155.72 from the decedent’s widow [appellant Doris Burdick], We reverse.
Without dispute, the above $44,155.52 was paid by the above personal representative to the decedent’s widow pursuant to a prior final order of the court dated November 21, 1977, which was never appealed by any party. See Burdick v. Burdick, 399 So. 2d 410 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Almost four years later, the trial court substantially modified that final order by requiring the decedent’s widow to disgorge $44,155.52 paid thereunder; this was done by court order pursuant to a motion filed by the personal representative in the nature of a motion for relief from judgment under Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540. This was error as the motion stated no colorable grounds for relief under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540. See e.g., Val Bostwick v. Cowan, 326 So. 2d 454 (Fla.1st DCA 1976). Moreover, we are unpersuaded that, in the context of this case, the trial court had any other authority to modify the subject final order as it did. All agree, however, that the November 21, 1977 court order no longer has any prospective application insofar as it requires the estate to pay the widow maintenance expenses for her homestead property.
The final judgment under review is, accordingly, reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Burdick v. Isadore Burdick, 399 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Bostwick v. Est. of Nell L. Cowan, 326 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)