Court Opinion

ID: 9687752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:46:34.091462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:31.220046
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
COLEMAN, Justice.
The appellees, in briefs filed in support of application for rehearing, request that we extend the opinion as to some matters which are not discussed on original deliverance.
In particular, counsel request that we discuss the question whether personal property or real property, which was not bequeathed or devised to the widow, shall be sold to obtain funds to be used to pay debts, claims, and expenses of administration. This question was not presented on original submission.
The instant proceeding was commenced by a petition filed by the executor seeking instructions with respect to the execution of the will and administration of the estate. The executor makes the following statement in the petition, to wit :
“13. The name and post office addresses of all persons interested in this proceeding are as follows:
“Lucille Paulk Youmans, daughter of deceased, 150 West Oakdale, Crestview, Florida 32536
*302“Miss Bobbie Louise Rowe, as Executrix under Will of Louise B. Paulk, deceased, whose address is P. O. Box 17, Lake Shores Towers, 2306 Southwest 13th Street, Gainesville, Florida.
“each of whom are over the age of twenty-one years and are otherwise legally competent persons.”
The issues presented and decided in this court on original submission were issues between Mrs. Youmans on one side and Miss Rowe in her capacity as executrix of the will of her mother and individually on the opposite side.
On original deliverance, we said:
. . . We are of opinion that the provisions for the widow have ‘a paramount right over all other devisees and legatees.’
“The trial court erred in holding that the debts, claims, and expenses of administration should be paid out of the bequest to the widow in Article Third of the will. All other bequests and devises should be exhausted before the bequest to the widow can be applied to payment of debts, claims, and expenses of administration.”
In brief on rehearing filed on behalf of the executor, counsel say:
“A cursory examination of the Petition for construction of the Will setting forth the assets of the H. B. Paulk Estate, clearly discloses that under the Opinion of this Court, it will be necessary to sell assets. The personal property, except personalty specifically bequeathed, has been allocated to the estate of Mrs. Louise Paulk. The only property remaining in the hands of the Executor from which funds for the purpose of paying debts and taxes can be obtained is the stock in H. B. Paulk Grocery Company, which was specifically bequeathed to several parties, including Mrs. Louise Paulk. We understand from the Opinion of the Court, that the stock in H. B. Paulk Grocery Company bequeathed to Mrs. Louise Paulk (Bobbie Louise Rowe) cannot be used for the payment of debts and taxes. Therefore, funds for these purposes must be obtained from the sale of the remaining stock in H. B. Paulk Grocery Company and we have no guarantee that these assets can be disposed of on the market for an amount sufficient to pay all debts claims, expense of administration and taxes. Furthermore, we are now confronted with a true question of abatement. What is the order of abatment as between a specific bequest of personalty and a general devise of realty? . . . .”
As the quotation from brief indicates, the question posed arises from an issue between appellee Youmans and the legatees of stock in H. B. Paulk Grocery Company other than the widow. The legatees named in Item Seven of the will; namely: Jack Paulk, the four sisters of testator, his dead sister’s heirs, Alton Newman, Lewis Steele, and Ethel Granger Paulk; have an interest which is opposed to sale of the stock bequeathed to them. It would be to their advantage for the court to sell the land devised to appellee Youmans instead of the stock bequeathed to the legatees named above in Item Seven of the will.
This question is not presented in the assignments of error. This question is not presented in the controversy between appellee Youmans and appellant Rowe. This question may be presented in the trial court on further consideration of this cause so that the trial court will have the benefit of argument in support of the conflicting claims of the parties interested. Any gratuitous advice which this court might attempt to give would be dicta.
Opinion extended.
Application for rehearing overruled.
All Justices concur.