Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2011

Lituchy v. Estate of Lituchy

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided June 1, 2011 · Gross, Taylor, Warner

61 So. 3d 506; 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8058; 2011 WL 2135597 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Metro Bank v. Howard, D., Jr. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The trial court denied the pro se petition for formal administration of the estate of the appellant’s wife, because the appellant was not represented by an attorney. We reverse, because the petition states that the appellant is his wife’s sole beneficiary. Thus, he is entitled to file the petition without the necessity of an attorney. See Fla. Prob. R. 5.030(a) (“Every guardian and every personal representative, unless the personal representative remains the sole interested person, shall be represented by an attorney admitted to practice in Florida.”) (emphasis added); Benedetto v. Columbia Park Healthcare Sys., 922 So.2d 416 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the petition for administration.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.