IN RE ESTATE OF ROSELLA M. SAGER, DECEASED. IN RE ESTATE OF DWIGHT E. SAGER, DECEASED
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 appeals from orders in two estates that required the filing of inventories and amended accountings, with objections to be filed later. The court dismissed the appeals because these orders were not final judgments.
No, the orders are not final judgments because the county judge's court retains jurisdiction to consider objections after the filings are made.
“This matter is before the court on motion in both estates to dismiss on the grounds that the order on objections to final accounting is not a final judgment.”
Establishes the procedural posture and the basis for the motion to dismiss.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Executor and Administratrix de bonis non of two estates were ordered to file inventories and amended final returns. The orders specified that inte…
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 Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the court on motion in both estates to dismiss on the grounds that the order on objections to final accounting is not a final judgment.
The orders appealed from require the Executor in the Estate of Rosella M. Sager, deceased, and the Administratrix de bonis non in the Estate of Dwight E. Sager to file an inventory of the assets of both estates and to file amended final return in each estate. Said order further provides that all interested parties shall have thirty days after the filing of such inventory and amended accounting to file their objections to the same. Such orders, by the terms thereof, are not final in that the county judge’s court retains jurisdiction. F.S.A. § 732.15.
Accordingly, the motions to dismiss in both cases are granted.
SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Est. OF Rose Bierman, 587 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…final for purposes of appeal. Examples of these include: Tyler v. Huggins, 175 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (order permitting a claim to be filed against an estate where the personal representative could still object thereto); In re Sager’s Estate, 171 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (order requiring the personal representative to file an inventory of assets and an amended final return); In re Peterson's Estate, 73 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1954) (order denying a motion to dismiss a petition for construction of certain…
-
Howard v. Baumer, 519 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…loudek’s Estate, 356 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); In re Letterman’s Estate, 238 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970); Tyler v. Huggins, 175 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1965); In re Maxcy’s Estate, 165 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1964); In re Sager’s Estate, 171 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1964); In re Dorsey’s Estate, 114 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1959); In re Hill’s Estate, 114 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1959). The order being challenged by appellant struck her demand for jury trial. It did not determine in any way her ri…