WILLIAM HUGER TURNER, III AND GEORGE LARKINS, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMPARO BUSTAMANTE, 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.
In this dispute over a residential property, the court affirmed a judgment requiring Turner to vacate and transfer title to Bustamante (to be held in trust for their child's education) and rejected Turner's counterclaim for a resulting or constructive trust. The case involves a property dispute arising from a terminated live-in relationship where Turner and his cousin Larkins claimed an interest based on alleged conditional funds from Turner's mother.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment ordering Turner to vacate and transfer title to Bustamante, modified to specify the property be held in trust for the child's education. The court rejected Turner and Larkins' counterclaim, finding it failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted.
[1] A court may modify a judgment to ensure property is held in trust for a child's education, even if the original judgment did not explicitly state this.
[2] A counterclaim seeking to establish a resulting or constructive trust may fail if the underlying allegations do not state a cause of action upon which relief can be grant…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court voided the instrument by which Larkins purported to take title and ordered Turner to vacate the premises and deliver possession and title to Amparo to be held in trust for Vanessa.”
Describes the trial court's core ruling granting Bustamante's ejectment and title claim while voiding Larkins' purported transfer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Turner, a single attorney, and Amparo Bustamante (who was married to another man) engaged in a live-in affair lasting several years and had a …
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 Resulting Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Appellant William Turner, a single man, and appellee Amparo Bustamante were lovers in a live-in affair which lasted several years. During the period of cohabitation, Amparo conceived and gave birth to a daughter, Vanessa. At all times of the affair, Amparo was married to another man.
The affair soured, and the parties bickered for many months. On October 28, 1982, Amparo brought suit against Turner for ejectment from the house where the parties had resided with the child, to quiet title, and for damages resulting from an alleged fraud perpetrated by Turner and Turner’s cousin, George Larkins, which caused Amparo to execute a document transferring her interest in the property to Larkins.
By way of an eight-count counterclaim Turner, an attorney appearing pro se and on behalf of Larkins, sought, inter alia, to establish a resulting trust or constructive trust based on allegations and evidence that the funds used to purchase the home came from Turner’s mother, Dorothea Turner, with a condition that the property be used to pay for her granddaughter’s education. The theory of the counterclaim was that Amparo had declared that Turner was not Vanessa’s father, for which reason the gift failed. Turner alleged that Amparo defrauded Mrs. Turner and that to allow Amparo to retain the exclusive use of the property would constitute an unjust enrichment. Larkins’ standing in the action is based on a claimed “assignment of rights” from Mrs. Turner. Mrs. Turner is not a party to this action.
In a final judgment entered December 6, 1984, the trial court voided the instrument by which Larkins purported to take title and ordered Turner to vacate the premises and deliver possession and title to Amparo to be held in trust for Vanessa. All counts of the counterclaim were denied.
We affirm the judgment on the complaint with a modification that the property is to be held in trust for the child’s education. Because the trial court’s findings and conclusions are otherwise supported by the record they will not be disturbed. Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc, 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Oceanic International Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), modified, 438 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
The judgment on Turner and Larkins’ counterclaim is also affirmed. Our view is that the counterclaim failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The disposition of this appeal does not bar an action by Mrs. Turner to void the trust.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Oceanic Int'l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Gonzalez, 438 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Oceanic Int'l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, Inc., 438 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)