Griffis Estate, In re

Decision Date27 December 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-1860,77-1860
Citation366 So.2d 80
PartiesIn re ESTATE of Stanton GRIFFIS, Deceased.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Chester Bedell of Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar & Zehmer, Jacksonville, and Coe & Broberg, Palm Beach, for appellant Elizabeth K. Griffis.

Freeman W. Barner, Jr. of Cromwell & Remsen, Riviera Beach and Edwin O. Simon of Redfearn & Simon, Miami and I. Ronald Horowitz, New York City, for appellee Nixon Griffis, Executor of the Estate of Stanton Griffis.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying attorney's fees to successful contestant in a will case.

The case of In re Estate of Griffis, 330 So.2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) established the manner in which the various beneficiaries were to be treated by the will of the late Stanton Griffis. In order for the last will of Mr. Griffis to be finally decided it was necessary for appellant, Elizabeth K. Griffis, to file suit and undergo protracted trial and appellate litigation. As it turned out, Elizabeth was able to obtain a benefit to herself.

More importantly, though, the ultimate will of Stanton Griffis was determined and the estate was benefitted. The benefit is that the beneficiaries whom Stanton Griffis intended are the ones who receive their legacies and bequests. For this the appellant is entitled to an attorney's fee. Section 733.106(3), Florida Statutes, (1975); In re Estate of McCune, 223 So.2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). It is not the fact that the beneficiary who contested the probate was successful but that by that contest the final will of the decedent was established and his estate property divided and distributed. In re Estate of Whitehead, 287 So.2d 9 (Fla.1973); In re Wilmott's Estate, 66 So.2d 465 (Fla.1953); Johnson v. Burleson, 61 So.2d 170 (Fla.1952). It should be noted in the Whitehead, supra, case the unsuccessful contestant was properly awarded an attorney's fee. See also In re Estate of Jones, 352 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); In re Estate of Weinstein, 339 So.2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); In re Estate of Barret, 137 So.2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); In re Estate of Farris, 113 So.2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).

Appellant also complains about the award of interest on her bequest. She says it should have been given to her from the date it became payable to her which under the common law was one year after the death of the testator. While we have no current statute regarding the payment of this type of interest we did have Section 731.22, Florida Statutes (1973), repealed by Ch. 74-106 & Ch. 75-220, Laws of Florida. It would be helpful if the legislature would establish some guidelines for persons concerned to follow. Here...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Griffis' Estate, In re, 79-2435
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 10 Junio 1981
    ...330 So.2d 797 (Fla.4th DCA 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Griffis v. Griffis, 342 So.2d 1101 (Fla.1977); 1 and In re Estate of Griffis, 366 So.2d 80 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). 2 These attorneys achieved for her by our 1976 decision the bequest from the decedent in his first codicil of $500,000. In d......
  • Moreno v. Allen
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 23 Abril 1997
    ...3 See Pfeifer v. Varner, 452 So.2d 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 461 So.2d 116 (Fla.1985); In re Estate of Griffis, 366 So.2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). 4. Finally, we vacate the $7,600.00 which the trial court awarded Allen from Perez's individual share of the estate. 4 Not ......
  • Estate of Lane, In re
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 25 Abril 1990
    ...be assessed against the residuary portion of the estate pursuant to section 733.805(1), Florida Statutes (1987). See In re Griffis, 366 So.2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); In re Estate of Whitehead, 287 So.2d 9 (Fla.1973); In re Wilmott's Estate, 66 So.2d 465 (Fla.1953); Johnson v. Burleson, 61 S......
  • Baumer v. Howard
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 7 Abril 1989
    ...interpreted as requiring that the services benefit the estate. In re Gleason's Estate, 74 So.2d 360 (Fla.1954); In re Estate of Griffis, 366 So.2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); In re Estate of Farris, 113 So.2d721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). "Benefit" as used in this context is not restricted to services......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT