Leterman's Estate, In re, 69--825

• Decision Date: 25 August 1970
• Docket Number: No. 69--825,69--825
• Citation: 238 So.2d 695
• Parties: In re ESTATE of Leonard D. LETERMAN, Deceased.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 695

238 So.2d 695

In re ESTATE of Leonard D. LETERMAN, Deceased.

No. 69--825.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 25, 1970.

Patton, Kanner, Tietig & Segal, Miami, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C.J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the county judge's court entitled: 'Order denying petition for substitution of counsel'. At oral argument this court raised the question of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Supplemental briefs on jurisdiction were submitted. We hold that we do not have jurisdiction and so must dismiss this appeal.

The jurisdiction of this court to hear appeals from county judge's courts is granted by Article V, § 5(3) of the Constitution of the State of Florida as amended in 1968, F.S.A. The pertinent portions of that section are:

'Appeals from trial courts in each appellate district, and from final orders or decrees of county judge's courts pertaining to probate matters or to estates and interests of minors and incompetents, may be taken to the court of appeal of such district, as a matter of right, from all final judgments or decrees, except those from which appeals may be taken direct to the supreme court or to a circuit court.'

It thus appears clear that our jurisdiction is limited to a review of final orders of county judge's courts. In re Nolan's Estate, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 341; Biederman v. Cheatham, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 538.

The order under consideration commands:

'It is, therefore, ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that:

1. The Petition for Substitution of Counsel filed hereby by the Co-Executors THOMAS W. LETERMAN and WALTER LETERMAN, is denied, and the law firm of BLACKWELL, WALKER & GRAY shall remain as attorneys for the Executors of the Estate.

2. That the alternate request of Co-Executors THOMAS W. LETERMAN and WALTER LETERMAN to employ separate counsel to represent them as Co-Executors at the expense of the Estate is denied, with the Court reserving at all times the right to fix reasonable attorney's fees.

3. The Co-Executors, THOMAS W. LETERMAN and WALTER LETERMAN, may employ in their capacity as Co-Executors, the law firm of PATTON, KANNER, TIETIG & SEGAL, but the said attorneys shall not be compensated from the assets of the Estate.

4. The counsel retained by the Co-Executors, THOMAS W. LETERMAN and WALTER LETERMAN, may file herein their notice of appearance, re-designation of resident agent for the two Co-Executors, and all matters affecting the Co-Executors, THOMAS W. LETERMAN and WALTER LETERMAN, relating to the administration of the Estate and their services as Co-Executors herein shall be directed through their counsel, and said counsel shall sign pleadings as attorneys for said Co-Executors.'

The briefs and our research have brought to our attention the following cases in which the orders appealed were held to be final orders: Smoak v. Graham, Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 559 (order denying payment of a claim against an estate); Epperson v. Rupp, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 537 (order denying a motion to strike objections to a claim); Biederman v. Cheatham, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 538 (order admitting a will to probate); In re Estate of Rogers, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 741 (order assigning dower). In the following cases, the orders appealed were held to be interlocutory: In re Guardianship of Straitz, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 889 (order denying a motion to...