In Re Estate of Tim, 180 So.2d 161
( Fla.1965)
Was the state's contention that it s duty is performed when it shows that, after diligent search and inquiry, no person or persons "entitled to the property" can be found?
The court agreed with petitioner that after the court had found no person or persons entitled to the property, the burden was upon respondents to prove their particular relationship to the decedent as the next of kin who were entitled, under the statute of descent and distribution, to his estate. The court found that all claimants, including respondents, failed to carry their burden of showing entitlement to the decedent's estate. The court remanded the case with instructions to affirm the probate court's decision.
Hall v. Maal , 32 So. 3d 682 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)
The court determined that the parties were not in substantial compliance with ch. 741, Fla. Stat. Both parties were aware that to become married in Florida they were required to appear before the clerk of the court together and apply for and receive a marriage license under § 741.08, Fla. Stat. (2002). Therefore, the father was not able to collect from the mother's estate pursuant to Fla. Stat. §732.101.
In re Estate of Butler , 444 So. 2d 477 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
A wife, who has taken advantage of the “divorce” that her husband told her he had bought, cannot now claim the benefits of a marriage which she herself has repudiated by her subsequent conduct. The wife’s abandonment of the marriage relationship operates to estop her from asserting rights under that marriage.
In re Estate of Davol , 100 So. 2d 188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)
The court affirmed the order of the lower court that the method of distribution of an estate to heirs of equal consanguinity was per stirpes. The court held that the precise statutory language of Section 731.25, Florida Statute, F.S.A did not permit per capita distribution to heirs of equal consanguinity.
Estes v. Nicholson , 39 Fla. 759, 23 So. 490 (1897)
The court held that under Fla. Rev. Stat. § 1823, so long as there was any kindred, however remote, on the one side or the other, he, she or they took one of the moieties to the exclusion of the kindred on the other side, who were entitled to the other. Complainant, as the only surviving relative of the intestate in the line of descent marked out by the law on the paternal side, was entitled to one-half of all the estate in controversy that the law cast upon the paternal kindred to the exclusion of all of the intestate's maternal relatives, notwithstanding the fact that she was the paternal aunt only of the half-blood to the intestate.
Williams v. Estate of Pender , 738 So. 2d 453 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
After appellant's father died intestate, the court concluded by a bare preponderance of evidence that the grandnieces had been equitably adopted by appellant's father and were entitled to inherit from his estate. Appellant alleged that the court used an incorrect standard of proof in deciding the issue
In re Estate of Broxton , 425 So. 2d 23 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
The court affirmed the trial court's order that appellants had not presented sufficient evidence to support their claim of right to share in a decedent's intestate estate. Appellants had not presented clear, unequivocal evidence that the decedent was the father of appellants' mother.