Coleman's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 23 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 256,256 |
| Citation | 103 So.2d 237 |
| Parties | In re ESTATE of Matthew A. COLEMAN, Deceased. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
H. L. Pringle, Leesburg, for appellant, Alma Hipp.
James B. Hare and Butler B. Hare, Saluda, S. C., and C. E. Duncan, Tavares, for appellants. Ruby Werts, Edward Q. Clary, Joe Harrison Clary, and Matthew A. Coleman, Jr.
Harry E. Gaylord, Eustis, for appellees, Mary Fellers and Goodlett Hill Proctor.
H. L. Pringle, Leesburg, and Jeff D. Griffith, Saluda, S. C., for appellees, Alma Hipp and Sue Schumpert.
R. J. Duff, Tampa, for H. B. Miller and Doris R. Miller.
John F. Cherry, Leesburg, for executors, H. B. Hunter, L. A. Jones and Will Coleman.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Lake County entered on an appeal from the County Judge's Court. Actually the case involves three appeals. As appears above, numerous attorneys and litigants are involved and six briefs have been filed.
The will of Matthew A. Coleman was admitted to probate in the County Judge's Court of Lake County on December 14, 1954. The executors filed a petition for construction of certain portions of the will and for determination of the validity of certain allegedly undelivered deeds and an allegedly undelivered satisfaction of mortgage. One of the parties, Matthew A. Coleman, Jr., filed a petition stating he had not been made a party to the petition filed by the executors, and praying that reference to certain lands he claimed be expunged from the executors' petition.
The executors answered the petition of Matthew A. Coleman, Jr. praying that a certain deed to him be declared void. After hearing the County Judge entered an order construing the will in certain respects and decreeing the deeds and the satisfaction of mortgage to be void for lack of delivery.
On appeal the Circuit Court reviewed the evidence and the record and affirmed the County Judge's Court as to the nullity of the deeds and the satisfaction of mortgage. The Circuit Court reversed the County Judge's Court, however, as to the construction of one part of the will.
The opinion of the Circuit Court, entitled Findings and Order of the Circuit Court on Appeal, was entered on February 28, 1957. It appears that one of the attorneys, R. J. Duff, representing the Millers on the matter of the validity of the satisfaction of mortgage, was not notified of the hearing on appeal. He moved for rehearing, which the Circuit Court denied after argument on the motion. A petition for rehearing on behalf of one of the other parties, Alma Hipp, also was denied. These appeals were then taken, notices of appeal and assignments of error having been duly filed.
On one of the appeals the appellants are Ruby H. Werts, Edward Q. Clary and Joe Harrison Clary, and Matthew A. Coleman, Jr. On another appeal the appellant is Alma Hipp, who is among the appellees on the other appeals. On the third appeal the appellants are Mary Fellers and Goodlett Hill Proctor, appellees on the other appeals; but no briefs have been filed as to this appeal, which concerned construction of the will, and it appears to have been abandoned.
Since the appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court reversing the County Judge's Court concerning the construction of the will have been abandoned the judgment of the Circuit Court in this respect should be affirmed.
At the outset a serious question is raised ex mero motu as to whether the County Judge's Court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the deeds and the satisfaction of mortgage.
The jurisdiction of the County Judge's Court when this case originated was set out in Article V, Section 17, of the Constituion of the State of Florida, F.S.A., and in F.S. 36.01 and F.S. 732.01, F.S.A. See now Article V, Section 7 of the Constitution.
Section 11 of Article V of the Constitution in effect at the time this case originated insofar as pertinent here reads as follows:
'The Circuit Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in equity, * * * and of all actions involving the title or boundaries of real estate * * *.'
F.S. 733.02, F.S.A., specifically provides for suits by personal representatives of estates to recover possession or quiet title to real estate.
Our Supreme Court, in the case of In re Lawrence's Estate, 45 So.2d 344, 345, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colucci v. Greenfield, 88-903
...DCA 1961); Pittman v. Roberts, 122 So.2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Florio v. State, 119 So.2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); In re Coleman's Estate, 103 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); In re Weiss' Estate, 102 So.2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. discharged, 106 So.2d 411 (Fla.1958); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(h)(2......
-
Brown's Estate, In re, 2150
...to the execution of these powers. State ex rel. West's Drug Stores, Inc. v. Cornelius, 110 Fla. 299, 149 So. 332; In re Coleman's Estate, Fla.App., 103 So.2d 237. The county judge's court is not a court of general jurisdiction according to the course of the common law. Mott v. First Nationa......
-
Feldman's Estate, In re
...1950, 45 So.2d 344; Zinnser v. Gregory, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 611; In re Weiss' Estate, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 154; In re Coleman's Estate, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 237; In re Rothman's Estate, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d The strongest previous case tending to sustain the jurisdiction of the count......
-
State v. Woods, 57791
...City of Stuart v. Green, 156 Fla. 551, 23 So.2d 831 (1945); State v. Stettin, 364 So.2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); In re Coleman's Estate, 103 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Accordingly the decision of the district court is quashed and the cause is remanded to that court with instructions to rei......