Conascenta v. Giordano, 61-845
| Decision Date | 24 July 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 61-845,61-845 |
| Citation | 143 So.2d 682 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Mildred Denitz CONASCENTA, Appellant, v. Tullio James GIORDANO, Administrator CTA of the Estate of Mario Giordano, a/k/a Robert Raymond, Deceased, Appellee. |
Sandler & Sandler, Miami, for appellant.
Joseph Pardo, Miami, for appellee.
Before HORTON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellant, Mildred Denitz Conascenta, former putative wife of Mario Giordano, also known as Robert Raymond, deceased, petitioned the County Judges' Court of Dade County for probate of will and letters of administration cum testamento annexo.
The appellee, Tullio James Giordano, is the brother of the deceased and the administrator of the said brother's estate. The appellee filed his objections to the appellant's above-mentioned petition for probate. The ground set forth that is most material to this appeal is 'that the decedent and the sole named beneficiary therein have been divorced subsequent to the execution of the Last Will and Testament.' By this objection the appellee has squarely raised the issue of whether the petitioner is barred from taking under the will of the deceased herein by virtue of § 731.101, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. 1
The cause was tried by the trial judge upon the petition and this objection, as well as one other objection not material to this appeal.
The salient facts which were proved or admitted in the trial are: That at the time of the execution of the last will of the decedent on the 17th day of July, 1947, the petitioner, Mildred Denitz Conascenta, and the decedent, Mario Giordano, also known as Robert Raymond, were living and co-habiting together as husband and wife in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; that Mildred Denitz was then known as Mildred Raymond; that thereafter, in the year 1948, Mildred Denitz and Robert Raymond, the decedent, obtained a license to marry and were married by a magistrate in a civil ceremony of marriage; that after the marriage the petitioner and the decedent did live and cohabit together as husband and wife until the year 1950, at which time the petitioner filed a suit for divorce in the state of Pennsylvania and obtained a final decree of divorce from the decedent.
It is further shown by the evidence that after the divorce was obtained, Mildred in 1950 married Conascenta and has remained married to him up to the present time; that the decedent Mario, came to the state of Florida and entered into a ceremony of marriage after having obtained a license therefor with one Madylon Smith in the year 1956; that while Mario and Madylon were living together as husband and wife by virtue of the said ceremony, a woman named Rose appeared on the scene claiming to be the wife of Mario by virtue of a ceremony of marriage entered into with him long prior to his relationship with Mildred, the petitioner; that the marriage between Mario and Rose was admitted, but the existence of such marriage was not known by Mildred until sometime after she had obtained a decree of divorce from him; that Mario brought suit for divorce in Dade County against Rose and a final decree of divorce was granted dissolving the marriage between Mario and Rose; that soon thereafter, Mario died and Madylon tried, in the courts, to have herself declared the surviving spouse of Mario, but she was not successful; that a short time thereafter, appellant, Mildred Denitz Conascenta, filed her petition for probate of the will and for determination of her rights as beneficiary of the decedent's estate thereunder.
After a full hearing, the trial judge found and held that the effect of § 731.101, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., did not revoke the will of the decedent but only made void any provisions of the said will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon v. Fishman, Case No. 2D17-1488
...Ganier v. Estate of Ganier, 418 So.2d 256 (Fla. 1982), Carroll v. Israelson, 169 So.3d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and Conascenta v. Giordano, 143 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). His reliance is misplaced.A. Estate of Ganier Mr. Fishman argues that the decedent "clearly executed [his will] in co......
-
Will of Reilly, Matter of
...of Bloomer, 620 S.W.2d 365 (Mo.Sup.Ct.1981); McFarlen v. McFarlen, 536 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.Ct.App.1976). See also Conascenta v. Giordano, 143 So.2d 682 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1962) cert. den. 149 So.2d. 48 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1962). The Iowa Supreme Court in Russell v. Johnston soundly The clear purpose of s......
-
Bauer v. Reese, E-172
...in this case invoking anything other than a literal construction and application of the statute. We are aware that in Conascenta v. Giordano, 143 So.2d 682 (Fla.App.1962), it was held that where a literal interpretation of the statute would lead to an unreasonable conclusion or purpose not ......
-
Marriage of Duke, In re
...not presented as squarely as in the foregoing authorities: McFarlen v. McFarlen (1976), Tex.Civ.App., 536 S.W.2d 590; Conascenta v. Giordano (1962), Fla.App., 143 So.2d 682. The fact that an Oklahoma case, Re Estate of Carroll (1987), Okla.App., 749 P.2d. 571, is contrary to the above autho......