From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Estate of Crissey

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jul 31, 1973
286 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Opinion

No. 72-748.

July 31, 1973.

Appeal from the County Judge's Court in and for Broward County, Paul M. Marko, III, County Judge.

Stephen W. Toothaker, of Berryhill, Avery, Schwenke Williams, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants, Mable Finlayson, Mollie Edmon, Angus MacGillivary, Margaret Peterson, Harriet Thompson, Isabelle Fitzpatrick, Irene Walker, Earl Graham and Lester Graham.

William L. Ranaghan, of Sullivan, Cochran Ranaghan Bailey, Pompano Beach, for appellees, Marie P. Crissey, as Executrix and W.R. Crissey, a beneficiary of the Estate of Margaret J. Crissey, Deceased.


Upon further consideration of the record in this cause we are of the opinion that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The notice of appeal which was filed on July 31, 1972, seeks to review an order of the County Judge's Court entered on June 28, 1972, dismissing appellant's amended petition for revocation of will and an order of July 19, 1972, dismissing appellant's motion for rehearing. The following comment appearing in the Florida Bar Practice Manual No. 8, Florida Probate Practice, Section 18.9, p. 777, aptly sets forth the basis for this court's determination that it lacks jurisdiction:

"Neither the Florida probate law nor the Florida guardianship law nor the Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure authorize the filing of a petition for rehearing or motion for new trial. The filing of those pleadings is common practice and in a proper case can be granted on authority of State ex rel. Booth v. Byington, 168 So.2d 164 (1st D.C.A.Fla. 1964) aff'd [Fla.] 178 So.2d 1. However, the filing of the petition or motion will not toll the time for taking an appeal. Counne v. Saffan, 87 So.2d 586 (Fla. 1956). Compare In re Lee's Estate, 90 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1956). The party who files the petition or motion therefore should obtain a ruling on it before the appeal period expires. If no ruling is obtained within the time for the taking of an appeal, a party should abandon the petition, file a notice of appeal and pursue the appeal. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

See also In re Estate of Armistead, Fla. App. 1970, 240 So.2d 830.

Inasmuch as the petition for rehearing did not have the effect of tolling the time for the taking of the instant appeal, the filing of the notice of appeal more than 30 days after the order of June 28, 1972 was untimely and could not vest jurisdiction in this court.

Appeal dismissed.

OWEN, C.J., and WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Estate of Crissey

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jul 31, 1973
286 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
Case details for

In re Estate of Crissey

Case Details

Full title:IN RE THE ESTATE OF MARGARET J. CRISSEY, DECEASED

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jul 31, 1973

Citations

286 So. 2d 585 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

Citing Cases

In re Estate of Murphy

Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). The authority relied on by appellee, In re Estate of Crissey, 286 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th…

In re Estate of Beeman

Applying the definition for finality found in Rule 5.100, Fla.R.P. G.P., there can be no doubt that the trial…