Legal Opinion

Stetzko v. Coleman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 17, 1998No. 97-1996PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STONE, Chief Judge.

We affirm an order rejecting Appellants’ petition to set aside certain inter vivos transactions. The trial court did not err by failing to apply' the dead man’s statute, § 90.602, Fla. Stat. (1995), to testimony on behalf of Appellee/Beverly Guido as to communications with the deceased regarding certain completed transactions which Appellants claim were procured by fraud and undue influence.

Appellants are siblings of the decedent, John Stetzko. Under the decedent’s will, Appellee receives half of the estate and Appellants, the other half. The estate was substantially…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of CarpenterSupreme Court of Florida · 1971
  2. Briscoe v. FLORIDA NAT. BANK OF MIAMIDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  3. Fogel v. SwannDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988
  4. Blades v. WardDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
  5. Davis v. FoulkrodDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of StetzkoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1998
  2. Bauerle v. BrushDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API