MARGARET WITTOCK AND RICHARD WITTOCK, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARTHA RAMPONI, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment because the pleadings and exhibits clearly showed the plaintiff was not entitled to relief as a matter of law.
Appellants failed to file responsive pleadings to a quiet title complaint after receiving faulty legal advice. A default was entered, and the trial co…
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 Setting Aside Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, RUPERT, Associate Judge.
Appellants, in reliance upon faulty legal advice, failed to file any pleadings in response to appellee’s complaint to quiet title in the trial court. A default was entered; and the trial court refused to set it aside and then entered a judgment. We reverse and remand.
The facts reflect that Margaret Wittock’s parents, John E. Erickson and Susanne Erickson, conveyed property to Susanne Erickson and Martha Ramponi as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Subsequently, Susanne Erickson joined by her husband, John E. Erickson, conveyed her interest in the jointly held property to her husband and herself. Both Susanne and John E. Erickson died and Ramponi filed the quiet title action to foreclose the appellants’ (beneficiaries of the Ericksons) interest in the land.
The law is clear that the creation of a joint tenancy with a right of survivor-ship can be terminated by the conveyance of an interest of any joint tenant to a stranger. The joint tenancy between Susanne Erickson and Martha Ramponi was terminated upon Susanne Erickson’s conveyance of her interest in the tenancy to herself and her husband, John E. Erickson, a stranger. See Harelik v. Teshoney, 337 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1976). Also, see Kozacik v. Kozacik, 157 Fla. 597, 26 So. 2d 659 (Fla.1946). At that point, the Ericksons became tenants in common with Ramponi. Accordingly, relief cannot be awarded where the pleadings and exhibits upon which appellee seeks relief clearly establish she is not entitled to same as a matter of law. On remand, appellee should be given the opportunity to amend her pleadings should there be additional facts she wishes to call to the attention of the trial court.
BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sitomer v. Richard M. Orlan for Belle Orlan Sitomer, 660 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…eesburg, 254 So. 2d at 780; Andrews, 21 So. 2d at 206. On the other hand, a joint tenancy may be termi [*1114] nated by a joint tenant’s conveyance of an interest to a stranger, which destroys the unities of possession and title. Wittock v. Ramponi, 446 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Kozacik v. Kozacik, 157 Fla. 597, 26 So. 2d 659 (Fla.1946). A joint owner’s withdrawal of funds from a joint bank account terminates the “joint tenancy nature of the [funds] and severs the right of survivorship as to the funds w…
-
Crockett v. Crockett, 708 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…his daughters. See Countrywide Funding Corp. v. Palmer, 589 So. 2d 994, 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (joint tenant may terminate joint tenancy with right of survivorship by his conveyance of his interest to himself without a strawman); Wittock v. Ramponi, 446 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)(joint tenant can terminate joint tenancy by conveyance to herself and husband). Although Palmer and Wittock did not involve dissolutions of marriage, they did involve situations where the act of one joint tenant terminated the jo…
-
Bucacci v. Boutin, 933 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…rty to a third party, the sale would have the legal effect of converting the present estate to an estate as tenants in common between Bucacci and the new purchaser, see Kozacik v. Kozacik, 157 Fla. 597, 26 So. 2d 659, 661 (1946); Wittock v. Ramponi, 446 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), after which the same right to partition would inhere in the new purchaser as is presently prayed by Boutin. See § 64.071(1), Fla. Stat. (2001)(where the land is so situated that physical partition cannot be made without prejudic…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kozacik v. Kozacik, 157 Fla. 597 (Fla. 1946)
- Harelik v. Teshoney, 337 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)