Case Name: In re ESTATE of Juanita LEWIN, Deceased. Jay LEWIN, Individually and as former Personal Representative of the Estate of Juanita Lewin, Deceased, Helen Neff, Individually and as former Administratrix of the Estate of Rosalie Lewin, Deceased, Philip Lewin and Alice Lewin Lewinson, Appellants, v. Dorothy M. MARKSBURY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Chenault M. Marksbury, Deceased, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1979-07-24
Citations: 374 So. 2d 58
Docket Number: No. 78-598
Parties: In re ESTATE of Juanita LEWIN, Deceased. Jay LEWIN, Individually and as former Personal Representative of the Estate of Juanita Lewin, Deceased, Helen Neff, Individually and as former Administratrix of the Estate of Rosalie Lewin, Deceased, Philip Lewin and Alice Lewin Lewinson, Appellants, v. Dorothy M. MARKSBURY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Chenault M. Marksbury, Deceased, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HUB-BART, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 374
Pages: 58–59

Head Matter:
In re ESTATE of Juanita LEWIN, Deceased. Jay LEWIN, Individually and as former Personal Representative of the Estate of Juanita Lewin, Deceased, Helen Neff, Individually and as former Administratrix of the Estate of Rosalie Lewin, Deceased, Philip Lewin and Alice Lewin Lewinson, Appellants, v. Dorothy M. MARKSBURY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Chenault M. Marksbury, Deceased, Appellee.
No. 78-598.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 24, 1979.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 5, 1979.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory H. Horton; Hylan H. Kout, Miami, for appellants.
Joe N. Unger; Smith, Mandler, Smith, Werner, Jacobowitz & Fried and Samuel Smith, Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HUB-BART, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in an intestate probate proceeding in which the trial court (a) set aside a prior order of distribution on the ground that the personal representative of the estate failed to make a diligent search and inquiry to determine the true heirs of the decedent, (b) made a new order of distribution to the personal representative of the sole heir of the decedent herein, and (c) required the distribu-tees under the prior order of distribution to return the monies received thereunder. Such distributees appeal raising a number of contentions relating to the admissibility of evidence received by the trial court, the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court, and the return of the monies ordered by the trial court. We have carefully examined the appellants' brief and can find no authority cited therein to upset the final judgment. Indeed, it is our duty to affirm based on the following authorities. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); In re Estate of Pennington, 226 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); § 731.201(1), 733.903, Fla.Stat. (1977).
Affirmed.