GRAY CORPORATION OF NORTH MIAMI

v.

CISKY

Citator

Cited By

• Lewis v. Raleigh Travers Green, III, 389 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
  …is’ issue or descendants who will receive her share of the trust income cannot now be determined.10 Any such person must survive Doris, and must be her issue or lineal descendant. In re Rentz’ Estate, 152 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 156 So. 2d 859 (Fla.1963); Dean v. Crews, 77 Fla. 319, 81 So. 479 (1919); 80 Am.Jur.2d Wills §§ 1409, 1415 (1975). The distribution should be per stirpes. Green v. Lewis, 113 Fla. 609, 151 So. 270 (1933); Rogers v. Atlantic Nat. Bank of Jacksonville, 371 So. 2d 17…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Matthew Weinstein Ad Litem of the unborn children of David L. Mackey v. MacKey, 408 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
  …59 (1854).4 This rule controls our decision here. [*853] It is true, as in every instance in which the acceleration doctrine is arguably applicable, see, Murphy v. Murphy, supra; In re Estate of Rentz, 152 So. 2d 480 (Fla.3d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 156 So. 2d 859 (Fla.1963), that the ultimate issue is the settlor’s wishes and that the acceleration-closed-class result will not obtain if the terms of the operative instrument manifest a contrary intent. Restatement of Property, supra, § 231 at pp. 970-71; 2A R.…