Case ID: so2d_436/html/0190-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ANSTEAD, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Annette CURRAN, Appellant, v. Mary E. CRONIN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Anthony J. Cronin, deceased, Appellee.
    No. 82-781.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    May 11, 1983.
    M. Daniel Hughes of Chappell & Brandt, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Donald A. Orlovsky of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, P.A., Fort Lauder-dale, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm upon the authority of Poe v. Estate of Levy, 411 So.2d 253, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Judge,

dissenting:

In a set of poorly drafted pleadings the appellant attempted to recover on a number of theories. Some of these theories were clearly barred, either by this court’s decision in Poe v. Estate of Levy or by appellant’s failure to file a timely claim with the appel-lee estate. However, I believe appellant is entitled to a trial on the merits as to her claim for the reasonable value of services rendered to the deceased. In Poe we sustained the dismissal of a similar claim on procedural grounds. However, we also recognized that such a claim, if it could be properly established, would not necessarily be barred just because the parties are cohabiting together in a marital type relationship. See Matter of Estate of Steffes, 95 Wis.2d 490, 290 N.W.2d 697 (1979) cited favorably in Poe. 
      
      . Appellate counsel was not representing Annette Curran at the time the original pleadings were drafted and filed.