Picchione v. Asti
| Decision Date | 07 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2321,76-2321 |
| Citation | 354 So.2d 954 |
| Parties | Nicholas PICCHIONE, d/b/a Nicholas Picchione & Co., Appellant, v. Robert ASTI, Earl DeMaris and Demetra DeMaris, Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Alfred DeMaris, Deceased, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sciarretta & Jackvony, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment entered in an action against the estate of Alfred DeMaris upon the basis that the plaintiff was barred from proceeding with the action because of his failure to file a claim in the estate pursuant to Section 733.702, Florida Statutes (1975). The fact of the plaintiff's failure was established on the record. The only suggested issue of fact is that the estate was estopped to assert the statute. See Davis v. Evans, 132 So.2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). No reply upon the basis of estoppel was asserted. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.100. Plaintiff produced nothing in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Therefore, summary judgment was properly entered.
A second point presented by appellant urges the unconstitutionality of Section 733.702, Florida Statutes (1975). The plaintiff did not challenge the constitutionality of the statute in the trial court and, therefore, cannot raise the question for the first time on this appeal. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla.1970). 1
Affirmed.
1 It is noted that if the constitutionality of the statute had been properly raised, the proper appeal would have been to the Supreme Court of Florida. See Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co.
...to raise the issue of estoppel or fraud he may file a reply pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100. See Picchione v. Asti, 354 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). This procedure guarantees that claims such as fraud and estoppel are properly adjudicated. Barnett Bank, 493 So.2d at 449. ......
-
Estate of Read, In re
...arguments to overcome the statutory bar. See, e.g., In re Estate of Peterson, 433 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Picchione v. Asti, 354 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); North v. Culmer, 193 So.2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), overruled on other grounds, Rinker Materials Corp. v. Palmer First Natio......
-
Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County v. Estate of Read
...a statute of limitations. Accord, Harbour House Properties, Inc. v. Estate of Stone, 443 So.2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Picchione v. Asti, 354 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Stern v. First National Bank, 275 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Similarly, other cases have used the nonclaim terminolog......
-
Jones v. Sun Bank/Miami, N.A.
...reply to the Motion to Strike. Barnett Bank of Palm Beach County v. Estate of Read, 493 So.2d 447 (Fla.1986) citing Picchione v. Asti, 354 So.2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). "5. The Co-Administrators' moved ore tenus for the Court to dispense with any further hearing and for the entry of an orde......