the right to take by the intestacy laws. Appellee further argued that the doctrine of “after-acquired title” barred Appellant from regaining his interest in the property and entitled Appellee to the interest she claimed. The trial court issued an Order of Subsequent Summary Administration and distributed the property held by the estate. Appellee received a one-half interest, and Appellant’s sister received the other one-half interest. As to Appellant, the court found that he would take nothing “because he conveyed away all of his interest therein to [the father and Appellee] by his QuitClaim Deed executed” in 1990. Analysis The court’s ruling on this issue was an application of uncontested facts to the law; thus, our review is de novo. See Aills v. Boemi, 29 So.3d 1105, 1108 (Fla.2010) (<HOLDING>). Although the trial court discussed during the
holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo holding that when the facts of a robbery are undisputed the imposition of the enhancement is a question of the application of the guidelines to be reviewed de novo holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo holding that waiver should be reviewed de novo when decided without trial on undisputed facts holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo