Case ID: so2d_503/html/0461-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cecile McGovern DANCHES, Appellant, v. Joseph DANCHES, individually and as Trustee, Diane Pasch, individually and as Trustee, Denise Fisher, Phillip Danches, Gayle Weston and Esther Halpern, Appellees.
    No. 86-1611.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    March 10, 1987.
    Holland & Knight and William F. Hamilton, Miami, for appellant.
    Stuart A. Goldstein, Garth A. Webster, Miami, for appellees.
    Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We hold that the trial court’s erroneous evidentiary rulings as to the applicability of the dead man’s statute, § 90.602, Florida Statutes (1985), and the hearsay rule, § 90.803(3), Florida Statutes (1985), precluded appellant from proving her contention that she was a pretermitted spouse under the terms of her deceased husband’s will. See Small v. Shure, 94 So.2d 371 (Fla.1957); Ritter v. Shamas, 452 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sessions v. Summers, 177 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Bordacs v. Kimmel, 139 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.