EFFIE KNOWLES, AS ADMINISTRATRIX AD LITEM OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN P. CASSIDY, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FLORENCE DEEGAN CASSIDY, 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 held that the trial court did not err in modifying the original decree regarding interest payments, as the accounting showed the funds had generated income equivalent to the interest.
The estate of John Cassidy sued the estate of Florence Cassidy for the return of money and securities. A decree was entered, followed by an accounting…
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 Interest On Judgments cases and more on FLexlaw
On July 29, 1960, the chancellor entered a decree in favor of the estate of John Cassidy against the estate of his widow Florence Cassidy, requiring a return by the latter of a substantial sum of money and certain securities which were held to be property of the former. Provision was made for an accounting as to the securities sold and the income therefrom.
Following accounting objections were filed, hearing was had at which testimony was taken and on March 7, 1963, a final order was made on the accounting. This appeal, taken on behalf of the estate of John Cassidy, challenges two provisions of that order.
Appellant’s first contention is that the court committed error by changing a pro*663vision of the original decree for payment of interest on the cash amount for which the decree had granted judgment with interest from a named date in 1955. We hold that the challenged ruling was not in error. As pointed out by appellee, the subsequent accounting for which the decree made provision showed investment of the monies had produced income substantially equivalent to such interest, and, therefore, to allow interest on the cash amount which the initial decree had ordered paid would amount to an unjust duplication of payment by appellee. Under the conditions disclosed, if the change in the decree was erroneous because of lapse of time, the error was shown to be harmless.
We have considered the appellant’s second contention, which deals with expense allowances and deductions granted to ap-pellee, and we are of the opinion that the appellant has not demonstrated error with respect to those matters.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of John P. Cassidy v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 160 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…services as attorneys for an ad-ministratrix ad litem which resulted in recovering a large fund for the estate (see First National Bank of Miami v. Knowles, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 95; Knowles v. [*744] First National Bank of Miami, Fla.App. 1964, 159 So. 2d 662), the county judge, after notice and hearing (§ 734.01(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) allowed fees of approximately 27% of the amount recovered. Appellants who challenge the fee allowance are interested only indirectly. They are beneficiaries under the wil…
-
Knowles v. The First Nat'l Bank of Miami, 166 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1964)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 159 So. 2d 662.…