IN RE ESTATE OF IVA NEIL BLANKENSHIP, DECEASED. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, AND DAMON RUNYON MEMORIAL FUND FOR CANCER RESEARCH, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
THELMA GRACE BROWN, JOE L. REED III, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF IVA NEIL BLANKENSHIP, DECEASED, J. L. REED AND SON, A CO-PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED OF J. L. REED, JR., AND J. L. REED III, AS TRUSTEES, AND JOE L. REED III AS TRUSTEE, R. V. PADGETT, EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK OF TAMPA, AS TRUSTEE AND REV. WALTER B. PASSIGLIA, APPELLEES
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 District Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court's determination that charitable bequests in a will were void under Florida Statute § 731.19, and that the sole heir at law was the decedent's daughter. The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's prior decision foreclosed further consideration of the charitable bequests, making it unnecessary to address the doctrines of dependent relative revocation or cy pres.
The charitable bequests were void under § 731.19, and the sole heir at law was Thelma Brown, the decedent's daughter. The doctrines of dependent relative revocation and cy pres were not available to reinstate the charitable bequests because the Florida Supreme Court's prior decision foreclosed further consideration of them.
“the judgment of the district court is quashed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Florida Supreme Court's reversal of the District Court's validation of charitable bequests, establishing that the bequests were voidable under § 731.19
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIva Neil Blankenship died with a will containing charitable bequests. The executor filed a petition for construction of the will and determination of …
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 Dependent Relative Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, respondents below, seek review of the county judge’s order entered pursuant to a petition by the executor for construction of the wills and determination of the distributees. The executor had alleged that he was in doubt as to the legatees, devisees, and beneficiaries of the estate and was consequently unable to make distribution.
The cause, reported as In re Blankenship’s Estate, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 519, was before this court previously, with the result that the order of the probate court declaring certain testamentary charitable bequests effective was affirmed, and the in-terdictory provision of section 731.19, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was deemed inoperable to invalidate the charitable bequests involved. The daughter, as heir at law, thereupon through the medium of certiorari petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review, asserting conflict between the decision of this court and that of In re Pratt’s Estate, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 499. The Supreme Court issued writ of certiorari and, finding such a conflict to exist, held that under section 731.19, as amended, the charitable bequests were voidable. In reversing, the court stated that “ *• * * the judgment of the district court is quashed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” In re Blankenship’s Estate, Fla.1960, 122 So.2d 466, 471.
After the mandate was transmitted to the probate court, the petition to construe the wills and determine the heirs was filed. Appellants by answer sought to invoke the doctrines of dependent relative revocation and cy pres. The probate .judge after hearing entered the order which forms the basis of the present appeal, finding that ap-pellee Thelma Brown was the sole heir at law of her mother, the decedent, Iva Neil Blankenship. Stating that the question of applicability of the dependent relative revocation doctrine had been answered and concluded by the Supreme Court, the probate court held it to be not available to the.petitioners and also held the doctrine of cy pres to be inapplicable and disregarded it.
It is our view that the Supreme Court by its decision foreclosed further consideration of the charitable bequests. We thus do not deem it necessary to discuss the two doctrines.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baumer v. Howard, 542 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ed according to the decedent’s intent. See Griffis, 366 So. 2d at 81, and Segal, 489 So. 2d 869. Certainly, it can be presumed that the decedent did not intend that his estate pass to his killer. Appellant has relied on In re Estate of Blankenship, 136 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961) for the proposition that where the alleged basis for recovery of attorney’s fees for services benefiting an estate is predicated upon the fact that services were performed which would have otherwise had to have been performed by t…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Charles H. Pratt v. Pratt, 88 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1956)
- In re Est. of Iva Neil Blankenship v. J. L. Reed & SON, 114 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Sands Bury LEE v. Cochran, 122 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1960)
- In re Est. of Iva Neil Blankenship v. J. L. Reed & SON, 122 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1960)