ELIZABETH JOHNS, ET AL.,
v.
F. M. TOWNSEND, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of a will and codicil concerning the termination of a trust. The lower court dismissed the bill for declaratory decree, finding the language plain and not subject to judicial construction. The appellate court affirmed this decision.
The language in the will and codicil regarding the termination of the trust is plain and unambiguous, and therefore not subject to judicial construction. The lower court did not err in dismissing the bill for declaratory decree.
“The bill alleges that ap [*214] pellants are in doubt as to the true construction of the will and codicils, especially the following paragraphs of the will, dated December 7, 1943, concerning the termination of the trust, to wit:”
Establishes the basis for the appellants' request for a declaratory decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, beneficiaries of a trust, sought a declaratory decree to construe the will and codicils regarding the trust's termination. They were uncer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Trust Termination cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final judgment dismissing a bill for declaratory decree on the grounds that said bill is vexatious and presents no justiciable issue. The bill alleges that ap*214pellants are in doubt as to the true construction of the will and codicils, especially the following paragraphs of the will, dated December 7, 1943, concerning the termination of the trust, to wit:
“ ‘FIFTH (4). The trust herein created shall terminate and be determined upon the death of my beloved wife, Lola M. Townsend, or of my son, F. M. Townsend, or of my son, W. C. Townsend, or of my daughter, Elizabeth Johns, or of my daughter, Christeen Warren, or of my daughter, Winnie L. Platt, whichever shall last occur.’
“ ‘SIXTH. Upon the termination of the trust, herein above created, the corpus of the trust fund, if any then remain, shall vest in and be distributed per stirpes among my lineal descendants then in being, i. e. the then surviving issue of deceased children shall take their deceased parent’s share by right of representation.’ ” — and the following paragraph in the first codicil dated April 18, 1944, -to wit:
“ ‘SIXTH. I ratify and confirm the devise of my said last will and testament “SIXTH” in all respects, except that it is my will and I direct that, upon the termination of the trust fund as herein provided, my granddaughter Viola Patterson, or the heirs of her body then surviving her, take such share as she or they would take if she were my daughter rather than my granddaughter’.”
“The necessity that a construction be made contrary to the allegation of the petition will not require the dismissal thereof. The judge of the lower court found, however, “that the date of the termination of the trust created in the will is as plain as the English Language can make it and for this; reason is not subject to judicial construction.”
In this we cannot say that he committed error.
The judgment of the lower court is therefore—
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Local NO. 234 OF United Ass'n OF Journeymen & Apprentices OF Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. OF United States & Canada v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1953)…s contention is that while a litigant will not be precluded from resorting to the declaratory judgment statutes for a declaration of his-rights merely because his contentions in respect to such rights must be declared against him (Johns v. Townsend, 160 Fla. 213, 34 So. 2d 565), it is settled by the decisions that before resort may be had to the statute authorizing the declaration of rights, a showing must be made by the moving party that there is a bona fide dispute between the contending parties and that…
-
MacFarlane v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 203 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…Wallace v. Julier, 147 Fla. 420, 3 So. 2d 711 (1941); Watson v. St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Company, Fla. App.1962, 146 So. 2d 383. This determination must be made, if it reasonably can be so made, from the instrument itself. See Johns v. Townsend, 160 Fla. 213, 34 So. 2d 565 (1948); Reid v. Barry, 93 Fla. 849, 112 So. 846 (1927). In the paragraph quoted, the requirement, that the revocation be by deed or writing under seal duly attested by two subscribing witnesses, was met if the revocation instrument w…
-
In re Est. of Douglas Deane v. Edward F. Butler Ad Litem of the Estate of Douglas Deane, 153 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…the testator as previously expressed by him. In re Burton’s Estate, Fla.1950, 45 So. 2d 873. Thus the appellant’s contention that it was error to admit testimony relative to such declarations for this purpose is without merit. . Johns v. Townsend, 160 Fla. 213, 34 So. 2d 565; Allen v. Fisher, 138 Fla. 757, 190 So. 264. . Filkins v. Gurney, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 57; Pancoast v. Pancoast, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 875; Mosgrove v. Mach, 133 Fla. 459, 182 So. 786; Murphy v. Murphy, 125 Fla. 855, 170 So. 85…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence