VIRGINIA LANDIN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
NEILS MCKENZIE OERTING, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a circuit court decree that had reversed the County Judge's probate decision regarding bank deposits in a deceased wife's estate. The court held that even if the County Judge erred in excluding the administrator's testimony about the source of funds, the error was harmless because the administrator had already included the deposits in the estate inventory, and other evidence supported that the deposits belonged to the decedent.
The court reversed the circuit court's reversal of the County Judge's decree, holding that even if the County Judge erred in excluding the testimony, the error was harmless because the administrator's inclusion of the deposits in the estate inventory, combined with other evidence in the record, sufficiently established that the deposits were the decedent's property.
“I had eight hundred dollars in gold in an old trunk at my house where it had been for years, and during my absence from the city, my wife, Mary C. Oerting, discovered that the money was there, and upon my return to the city my wife got the money out of the trunk and carried it down to the bank and deposited it in her name.”
The administrator's testimony explaining that the bank deposits were his money, not his wife's, which was objected to and excluded by the County Judge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn administrator of his deceased wife's estate included bank deposits of $857.00 in the inventory of the estate. The administrator testified that he h…
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 Probate Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
This appeal is from a decree of the circuit court reversing a decree of the County Judge sitting as a Court of Probate. A final settlement by an administrator of his deceased wife’s estate was contested by the decedent’s children. In taking the testimony before the County Judge as to whether certain bank deposits amounting to $857.00 included in the inventory of the deceased wife’s estate were the property of the decedent or of her husband, the administrator, the following question was propounded to the administrator by his counsel: - “State whether or not the money on deposit in the American National Bank, of Pensacola, to the credit of Mary C. Oerting, at the time of her death, was your money.” Answer. “I had eight hundred dollars in gold in an old trunk at my house where it had been for years, and during my absence from the city, my wife, Mary C. Oerting, discovered that the money was there, and upon my return to the city my wife got the money out of the trunk and carried it down to the bank and deposited it in her name.” It appears merely that an objection was sustained by the County Judge to this testimony on the ground that it related to a transaction or communication between the administrator and his decedent.
Even if the action of the County Judge in sustaining the objection to the testimony was erroneous, it was, in view of the entire record, harmless. The administrator had included the bank deposits in the inventory of the decedent’s property signed by him and by the appraisers. The testimony objected to was heard by the judge notwithstanding the objection to it, and whether it was considered or not, it was not sufficient to overcome the evidence in the case showing that the deposits were the property of the decedent.
The decree of the circuit court is reversed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hopkins v. McClure, 45 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1950)…obative value. The rejection of this evidence, if its consideration could not properly have resulted in a different judgment is harmless error and should not cause a reversal of the judgment. Sec. 54.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Landin v. Oerting, 61 Fla. 652, 55 So. 843. We have carefully examined all of the evidence including that proffered and rejected and find that it fails to furnish a sufficient basis for a judgment in favor of the contestant, when measured in the light of the prior decisions of t…
-
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Pilar Alvarez, 444 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…(c) no harmful error has been demonstrated in the admission or striking of various items of evidence. Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981); Prince v. Aucilla Naval Stores Co., 103 Fla. 605, 137 So. 886 (1931); Landin v. Oerting, 61 Fla. 652, 55 So. 843 (1911); Leeb v. Read, 190 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Sec. 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1981). Affirmed.…