Case Name: John H. PERRY, III, Stanton S. Perry, and Henry A. Perry, Appellants, v. J. Helena PERRY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-03-05
Citations: 976 So. 2d 1151
Docket Number: No. 4D07-601
Parties: John H. PERRY, III, Stanton S. Perry, and Henry A. Perry, Appellants, v. J. Helena PERRY, Appellee.
Judges: SHAHOOD, C.J. and TAYLOR, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 976
Pages: 1151–1155

Head Matter:
John H. PERRY, III, Stanton S. Perry, and Henry A. Perry, Appellants, v. J. Helena PERRY, Appellee.
No. 4D07-601.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 5, 2008.
James G. Pressly, Jr. of Pressly & Pressly, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Edward Downey of Downey & Downey, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from an order dismissing one count of a multi-count complaint in a probate proceeding. The amended complaint sought to revoke probate of either part or all of the decedent's will, based on theories of breach of a contract to make a will, undue influence, and lack of testamentary capacity. The trial court dismissed only Count I, which alleged the "breach of a contract to make a will" theory. We dismiss this piecemeal appeal of that order dismissing that single count.
John Perry, Jr. was the beneficiary of a power of appointment granted to him under the Last Will and Testament of his father, John Perry, Sr. On October 21, 1966, John Perry, Jr. executed a Stipulation In Re Alimony, Maintenance, Child Support, and Support dated October 21, 1966, which was then incorporated into a final decree of divorce dated October 28, 1966. In that stipulation, Perry agreed that in the event he exercised the power of appointment granted to him under his father's will, he would designate his sons as the beneficiaries. By agreement of October 11, 1979, and a subsequent supplemental agreement dated April 2, 1985, the decedent agreed not to exercise this power of appointment in favor of his surviving spouse.
John Perry, Jr. executed his Last Will and Testament on May 4, 2004. Article IV of the Will purports to exercise the power of appointment over his father's trust in favor of his surviving spouse, J. Helena Perry. John Perry, Jr. died on May 16, 2006. Perry's will was admitted to probate and the decedent's wife at the time of his death, J. Helena Perry, was issued letters of administration in her capacity as personal representative of the estate.
The three sons from Perry's first marriage, John III, Henry, and Stanton, then filed a petition in the estate, naming J. Helena Perry as a respondent. Subsequently, they filed an amended petition. In Count I of that petition, the sons allege that, based on the two agreements previously outlined, the decedent had agreed that his exercise of the power of appointment must be in favor of the sons and further agreed that he would not exercise the power of appointment in favor of his surviving spouse. The sons prayed that the court would revoke probate of Article IV of the Will and declare its provisions void. The remaining counts of the petition allege: 1) undue influence as to Article IV of the Will and 2) undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity as to the Will as a whole.
Acting pursuant to the motion of the personal representative, the trial court dismissed Count I of the amended petition with prejudice based on "standing." The sons appeal from that order.
Piecemeal appeals are not permitted where claims are legally interrelated and substantively involve the same transaction. Mendez v. W. Flagler Family Ass'n, 303 So.2d 1, 5 (Fla.1974); Palm Beach Newspapers v. Walker, 506 So.2d 39, 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The test to determine whether counts of a multi-count complaint are so interrelated as to preclude a piecemeal appeal is: "whether the counts arise from a set of common facts or a single transaction, not whether different legal theories or additional facts are involved in separate counts." Massachusetts Life Ins. Co. v. Crapo, 918 So.2d 393, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Lemon v. Groninger, 708 So.2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)).
In this case, each count rests on the common, single transaction — the decedent's execution of a will which exercised the power of appointment in favor of the decedent's wife rather than his sons.
Appeal dismissed.
SHAHOOD, C.J. and TAYLOR, J., concur.
FARMER, J., concurs with opinion.