IN RE ESTATE OF BENJAMIN ROSE, DECEASED. LILLIAN ROSE, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, A UNITED STATES BANKING CORPORATION, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BENJAMIN ROSE, DECEASED, EDWARD F. BUTLER, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JAMIE ROSE, AN INFANT, AND BARRY ZION ROSE, 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.
This case reviews a county judge's interpretation of a will, specifically whether a bequest of 'one-half (Vá) of my adjusted, gross estate' was a specific dollar amount or a fractional share of the residual estate. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding it to be a specific dollar amount.
No, the County Judge did not err in interpreting the bequest as a specific dollar amount. The appellate court found no error in this interpretation.
“the County Judge misinterpreted the intention of the testator, when he adjudicated that the " * * * bequest to the Trustee of Trust A of 'one-half (Vá) of my adjusted, gross estate' * * * " was a specific bequest of a dollar amount [as finally determined in the estate tax proceedings} rather than a bequest of a fractional share of a residual estate.”
This quote frames the central issue on appeal regarding the interpretation of the will's bequest.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves the construction of a will by the County Judge. The primary issue on appeal is whether a bequest of 'one-half (Vá) of my adjusted, g…
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 Testamentary Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal brings on for review an order of the County Judge construing the provisions of a will. The principal point relied on for reversal is that the County Judge misinterpreted the intention of the testator, when he adjudicated that the “ * * * bequest to the Trustee of Trust A of ‘one-half (Vá) of my adjusted, gross estate’ * * * ” was a specific bequest of a dollar amount [as finally determined in the estate tax proceedings} rather than a bequest of a fractional share of a residual estate. We find no error on this point, and affirm. See: King v. Citizens & Southern National Bank of Atlanta, Ga., Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 689; In Re Althouse’s Estate, 404 Pa. 412, 172 A.2d 146.
We find that the appellant is without standing to raise the other point contended as error on the part of the trial judge, as same failed to affect her interest. See: King v. Brown, Fla. 1951, 55 So.2d 187.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the order here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Karin M. Stas v. Posada, 760 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ment entered below. With no interest at stake, she is precluded from seeking appellate review. See Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1953); King v. Brown, 55 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1951); Estate of Rose v. First Nat’l Bank of Miami, 165 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Appellant Juan Mueller was not a party below and made no effort to intervene in the action. Consequently, he too is precluded from seeking appellate review. See Forcum v. Symmes, 101 Fla. 1266, 133 So. 88 (1931); Barnett v. Bar…
-
In re Est. OF C.J. Lenahan v. Lenahan, 511 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…te of designation by quantity or amount. 18 Fla. [*375] Jur.2d Decedent’s Property § 427. Such a bequest, unlike a fractional residual bequest, does not share in the economic gain or loss of the estate during administration. See In Re Rose’s Estate, 165 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964) and King v. Citizens & Southern National Bank of Atlanta, Ga., 103 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1958). Also, contrary to appellant’s assertions, a will may have more than one residuary clause. See Sternberg v. Florida National Bank…
-
Emp'rs Fire Ins. Co. v. Blanchard, 234 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…all, that was sought by the motion to dismiss. It is elementary that a party cannot appeal from, or file any proceedings to review, an order or judgment in his favor. Paul v. Kanter, Fla.App. 1963, 155 So. 2d 402; In re Rose’s Estate, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 226; Akins v. Bethea, Fla. 1948, 33 So. 2d 638; Evans v. Green, 1938, 132 Fla. 469, 180 So. 753; [*383] Lovett v. Lovett, 1927, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768; State Road Department of Florida v. Zetrouer, 1932, 105 Fla. 650, 142 So. 217; North Shore Bank v.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beulah McCollum King and Jackson L. King v. The Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank OF Atlanta, 103 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)