Opinion

Robert Paul Brown, Jr. v. Michael Scott Brown

  • 169 So. 3d 286
  • 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10748
  • 2015 WL 4269921
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Jul 15, 2015
Status
Published
Author
Gerber
On the bench
Gerber, Stevenson, Levine
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.9%

“In no event could the [circuit] court effect a partition of lands outside this state.”

How later courts described this case

  • “In no event could the [circuit] court effect a partition of lands outside this state.”
  • “Like lines in the sand, state boundaries determine a court’s jurisdiction over real property,” and thus the court lacked in rem jurisdiction to order the partition and sale of foreign property
  • “When a testator executes a will devising lands in two or more states, the courts in each state construe it as to the lands located therein as if devised by separate wills.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT PAUL BROWN, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL SCOTT BROWN,

Appellee.

No. 4D12-2446

[July 15, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; Martin Colin, Judge; L.T. Case No.

502009CP004124XXXXSB.

Craig A. Boudreau, Wellington, for appellant.

Nancy Guffey and Peter M. Feaman of Peter M. Feaman, P.A., Boynton

Beach, for appellee.

GERBER, J.

An estate beneficiary appeals from the circuit court’s final order

directing the personal representative to divide and distribute “the

[decedent’s] Georgia real estate and Florida real estate and other

miscellaneous inventory assets of the Estate” amongst several estate

beneficiaries. The appellant primarily argues that the circuit court lacked

jurisdiction to direct the personal representative to distribute the

decedent’s Georgia real estate.

We agree and reverse that portion of the order on appeal. See Polkowski

v. Polkowski, 854 So. 2d 286, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Like lines in the

sand, state boundaries determine a court’s jurisdiction over real property,”

and thus the court lacked in rem jurisdiction to order the partition and

sale of foreign property); Pawlik v. Pawlik, 545 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d

DCA 1989) (“In no event could the [circuit] court effect a partition of lands

outside this state.”) (citation omitted); In re Roberg’s Estate, 396 So. 2d

235, 235-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (“When a testator executes a will devising

lands in two or more states, the courts in each state construe it as to the

lands located therein as if devised by separate wills.”) (citations omitted).

To partition property from outside this state, the personal

representative needs to open an ancillary action in Georgia. See § 64.022,

Fla. Stat. (2012) (a suit for partition “shall be brought in any county where

the lands or any part thereof lie which are the subject matter of the

action.”).

In all other respects, we affirm the order on appeal without further

discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.