IN RE ESTATE OF DANIEL EMMITT BROWN, DECEASED. GULF FERTILIZER CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
IDA CATHERINE BROWN ROBINSON, ADMINISTRATRIX DE BONIS NON OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL EMMITT BROWN, 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.
This case involves an appeal concerning the constitutionality of a Florida statute that barred claims against estates. The appellate court determined that the appeal was improperly filed and should be transferred to the Florida Supreme Court.
The court did not directly rule on the constitutionality of the statute. Instead, it held that the appeal was improvidently taken to the district court and must be transferred to the Florida Supreme Court.
“The trial judge denied the relief on the ground that section 733.211, pertaining to probate law and to the limitation of actions on claims against estates, barred any right to payment, thereby necessarily upholding the constitutionality of the act.”
This quote explains the trial court's decision and the implicit ruling on the statute's constitutionality.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGulf Fertilizer Co. filed a claim against an estate, arguing that the statute barring claims against pre-existing estates was unconstitutional. The tr…
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 Appellate Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant sought compulsory payment of its claim filed against the estate administered by the appellee, contending that section 733.211, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is unconstitutional as it purports to act retrospectively in barring claims against estates pre-existing its passage because the time prescribed is not reasonable for the assertion of such claims. The trial judge denied the relief on the ground that section 733.211, pertaining to probate law and to the limitation of actions on claims against estates, barred any right to payment, thereby necessarily upholding the constitutionality of the act. Such decision was necessary to determination of the cause, and, therefore, such finding was inherent in the judgment. Harrell’s Candy Kitchen, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, Fla.1959, 111 So.2d 439. Appeal from this order was taken directly to this court. The assignments of error included specifically the constitutional question raised in the trial court, and this was argued in the briefs of the respective parties and also on oral argument before this court.
Article V, section 4(2), Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A., and Rule 2.1, subd. a(5) (a) and (b), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., provide that appeals from trial courts may be taken directly to the Supreme Court, as a matter of right, from final judgments or decrees directly passing upon the validity of a state statute and, also, that appeals may be taken from district courts of appeal to the Supreme Court, as a matter of right, only from decisions initially passing upon the validity of a state statute. It is our view that the appeal here was improvidently taken to this court and should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Florida. In conformity with Rule 2.1, subd. a (5) (d), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., the notice of appeal and all other papers filed in the appeal cause at the expiration of five days from the filing of this-opinion shall be transferred to the Supreme-Court of Florida.
It is so ordered.
ALLEN, C. J., and SMITH, CULVER,, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tyson v. Lanier, 156 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1963)…hether the opinion says so or not, such a finding was inherent in the judgment. Harrell’s Candy Kitchen v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 439; Townsend v. Beck, 140 Fla. 553, 192 So. 390; and In Re Brown’s Estate, Fla.1960, 114 So. 2d 522, and 117 So. 2d 478. We have examined every other question treated by petitioners, as well as those treated by respondents, and we think we have jurisdiction of the cause. We find that § 193.11(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was well within the powe…
-
Alton Aderhold v. State, 369 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…edure 9.030(a)(l)(A)(ii). It, therefore, appears that the trial court herein initially passed upon the constitutional validity in question and that jurisdiction of this matter is properly within the Florida Supreme Court. See In re Estate of Brown, 114 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959), 117 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1960), and Smith v. Martin, 186 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1966). .Therefore, in accordance with Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(b), jurisdiction of this matter is hereby transferred to the Florida Supreme Court. The Clerk of this Cou…
-
Gulf Fertilizer Co. v. Robinson, 114 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…tention to transfer the above cause to the Supreme Court of Florida, it is Ordered that said cause be and the same is hereby transferred to said Supreme Court of Florida for consideration and determination. See, also In re Brown’s Estate, Fla.App., 114 So. 2d 522.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harrell's Candy Kitchen, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth., 111 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1959)