Estate of Shambow v. Shambow
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Martha Miles v. City of Edgewater Police Department (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
- Manatee County v. 1187 Upper James of Florida, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
- Chames v. DeMayo (Fla. 2007)
- Amend. to Regulating Fla. Bar Rule 4-1.5 (Fla. 2006)
- In re Amendment to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar-Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (Fla. 2006)
- Sarasota County v. Taylor Woodrow Homes (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
- Woolf v. Reed (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
- Buenger v. Kennedy (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)
- Schenkel v. Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)
- Pollack v. Pollock (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)
- Briggs v. Fitzpatrick (Fla. 1955)
- Jody Meyer v. U-Haul Co of Florida, and Cindy Pronto (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
- Alvin Davis v. State of Florida (Fla. 2021)
- Weatherford v. Allstate Insurance (Hillsborough County Circuit Court 1965)
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
This is a companion case to Shambow v. Shambow this day filed. A full statement of this case appears in our opinion filed on a former appeal. Shambow v. Shambow, 149 Fla. 278, 5 So. (2nd) 454. When the mandate went down the county judge proceeded to take additional testimony agreeable to our opinion. Subsequently appellants filed a petition to charge appellee with rent and other charges and thereafter demanded a jury trial on appellee’s claim which demand was disallowed. The county judge allowed the claim of appellee’s in the sum of $5488.14 and ordered the same paid and denied the petition of appellants, to charge appellee with rent and other charges. Upon the failure of the circuit court to disturb such rulings the judgment of the circuit court is appealed here.
Taking up for consideration this case where we left off on its former appearance here, the question arises whether the *763 appellee has proven his claim. We have considered the evidence and find it ample to sustain the judgment.
It is urged that it was erroneous to allow the claim for services rendered previous to within three years of the mother’s death. Such is not the law because the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the debt is due and in this case no money was due until after the mother’s death.
It is claimed that appellants had a constitutional right to a jury trial in a court of competent jurisdiction. It is fundamental that constitutional rights which are personal may be waived. Waiver may be expresed or implied. We do not decide the question, however, because the history of this litigation, as revealed by the records on appeals here, shows most clearly that appellants waived whatever rights they may have had.
The judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.