Kane v. Lord

Florida District Courts of Appeal
Kane v. Lord, 590 So. 2d 442 (1991)
1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9794; 1991 WL 187992
Baskin, Goderich, Nesbitt

Kane v. Lord

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Spohr v. Berryman, 564 So.2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Scutieri v. Estate of Revitz, 510 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 519 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1988); Harbour House Properties, Inc. v. Estate of Stone, 443 So.2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

070rehearing

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing and reverse the order under review based on the authority of Spohr v. Berryman, 589 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1991).

Reversed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Maria KANE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Alfred B. Kane v. Marilyn LORD, Michelle Lord, Ellen Lord, and Debra Lord Hirsh
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published