Meigs' Estate, In re, G-171

• Decision Date: 08 July 1965
• Docket Number: No. G-171,G-171
• Citation: 177 So.2d 246
• Parties: In re ESTATE of Claud G. MEIGS, Deceased.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 246

177 So.2d 246

In re ESTATE of Claud G. MEIGS, Deceased.

No. G-171.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 8, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 3, 1965.

Ferrin C. Campbell, Crestview, for appellant.

Middleton & Barr and Gillis E. Powell, Crestview, for appellee.

STURGIS, Judge.

This is an appeal by C. F. Lear from two orders of the County Judge's Court of Okaloosa County, Florida, sitting in probate, one of which denied appellant's petitions for the entry of an order approving certain claims against the estate of Claud g. Meigs, deceased, and the other granting the appellee-executrix an extension of time in which to file objections to appellant's claims against the estate. Dates are important.

On October 8, 1962, an instrument was probated as the last will and testament of said decedent and letters testamentary issued to his widow who on October 11, 1962, caused notice to creditors to be published. On February 11, 1963, appellant filed two substantial claims against the estate. On March 18, 1963, a legatee attacked the probate of said will and on March 13, 1964, an order was entered revoking the probate and revoking also the letters testamentary theretofore issued to Mrs. Meigs.

On April 24, 1964, another will of the decedent, containing identical dispositive provisions, was admitted to probate and letters testamentary thereon issued to decedent's widow. On June 18, 1964, another notice to creditors was published and on July 17, 1964, appellant refiled claims identical to those filed February 11, 1963. No objections had been made to the claims as originally filed nor had the claimant taken any action thereon. However, by leave of the court of probate objections to both the original and refiled claims were filed December 1, 1964. It is seen that as to the claims filed February 11, 1963, these objections were not filed within the eight months prescribed by Section 733.18, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., but were timely filed as to the claims refiled July 17, 1964.

The record on appeal reveals that on September 21, 1964, the executrix, being in doubt as to whether the second notice to creditors was necessary, petitioned the court for an order extending the time for filing objections to the claims filed February 11, 1963. The executrix alleged that when the original claims were filed the estate was involved in the contest of the will and that the second notice to creditors was given pursuant to instructions of the court.

On September 22, 1964, which is the same date on which appellee's petition for extension was filed, appellant filed separate petitions with respect to each of the two claims then pending against the estate, seeking an order approving same. Each petition represented that the claim was filed 'on or about July 14, 1964' and within the period allowed by law. On November 30, 1964, the court entered an order extending to December 5, 1964, the time of filing objections to the claims filed February 11, 1963, and refiled July 17, 1964, and allowing the appellant-claimant twenty days from the filing of such objection in which to file suit on the claims in the approprate court, and on the same date entered an order denying appellant's petitions, hence this appeal.

The proceedings before the county judge at the hearing on the several petitions were reported and a transcript thereof appears as part of the record on appeal. The appellant vigorously insists by his reply brief that the colloquy between counsel and the county judge as contained in said transcript has no legal standing and should not be considered by this court in determining the appeal, and in support thereof submits that although the transcript is included in the record on appeal, it is not properly before this court because the appellee did not place it in the appendix to her brief as called for by rule 3.7(f)(5), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. The record on appeal including said transcript, is less than 75 pages. Therefore, under Florida Appellate Rule 3.7(j) it was unnecessary for appellee to include the transcript in an appendix to her brief.

Said transcript reveals that the parties were represented by counsel at the hearing and that an extended discussion took place with respect to informal discussions that were had with the trial judge in the course of...