Legal Opinion

Danches v. Danches

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 10, 1987No. 86-1611Published

1Per curiam

We hold that the trial court’s erroneous evidentiary rulings as to the applicability of the dead man’s statute, § 90.602, Florida Statutes (1985), and the hearsay rule, § 90.803(3), Florida Statutes (1985), precluded appellant from proving her contention that she was a pretermitted spouse under the terms of her deceased husband’s will. See Small v. Shure, 94 So.2d 371 (Fla.1957); Ritter v. Shamas, 452 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sessions v. Summers, 177 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Bordacs v. Kimmel, 139 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reverse…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bordacs v. KimmelDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1962
  2. Small v. ShureSupreme Court of Florida · 1957
  3. Sessions v. SummersDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
  4. Ritter v. ShamasDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API