PETER MERCURIO, APPELLANT,
v.
OPHELIA URBAN, 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.
Court affirmed that Urban held a presumptive gift interest in the stock certificate as a tenant in common, but reversed in part to award Mercurio a credit for half the expenses incurred.
When stock is registered in two names as tenants in common, a presumption of gift arises that the non-contributing party receives a gift interest, and the contributing party's sole contribution of funds is insufficient to rebut this presumption without evidence addressing donative intent, delivery, and acceptance.
[1] Registering stock in the names of two persons as tenants in common creates a presumption of gift to the non-contributing party, which is rebuttable only by evidence addre…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 registering of stock in both names creates a presumption of gift; nevertheless, such a conclusion is not conclusive of the issue and may be rebutted”
Explaining that while a presumption of gift arises from joint titling, it is rebuttable if the contributing party meets his burden.
Mercurio and Urban owned a stock certificate titled as tenants in common. Mercurio contributed all funds for the purchase but Urban's name appeared on…
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 Delivery cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s final judgment awarding Ophelia Urban (Urban) one-half of the stock certificate owned by the parties as tenants in common. The trial court did not err in finding that Urban was entitled to a presumption of gift as a result of her name appearing on the subject stock certificate. Sullivan v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 230 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
Furthermore, we agree with the trial court finding that Mercurio did not meet his burden of rebutting the presumption of a gift. According to the court in Sullivan, the registering of stock in both names creates a presumption of gift; nevertheless, such a conclusion is not conclusive of the issue and may be rebutted. Contrary to Mercurio’s assertion, the mere fact that he contributed all the funds for the purchase of the stock certificate is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that a gift was intended when the stock certificate was titled as tenants in common. Although there was conflicting evidence, the record supports the trial court’s finding that Mercurio failed to adequately rebut any of the essential elements of a gift, i.e., donative intent, delivery, and acceptance by Urban.
Since we affirm that Urban owns one-half of the value represented in the stock certificate in dispute, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to award Mercurio a credit for $2,933.95 representing one-half of the expenses he incurred with respect to the stock certificate.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded to the trial court to amend the final judgment in accordance with this opinion.
GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mulato v. Mulato, 705 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…er of stock are intent, delivery and acceptance. See Sullivan v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 230 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). However, registering stock in two names creates the rebuttable presumption that a gift was intended. See Mercurio v. Urban, 552 So. 2d 236, 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (holding that appellee was entitled to a presumption of gift as a result of her name appearing on the subject stock certificate); Sullivan, 230 So. 2d at 20 (registering stock in both names creates a presumption of gift, but…
-
Wraight v. Wraight, 71 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…d the money to an annuity retirement account and made Wife the beneficiary. At the final hearing below, Wife’s counsel argued that, in doing so, Husband created an interspousal gift of his non-marital U.K. pension. Wife relied on Mercurio v. Urban, 552 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). In Mercu-rio, the parties owned a stock certificate as tenants in common. Both parties’ names appeared on the stock certificate. The Fourth District concluded that there was a presumption of a gift since the parties each owned o…
-
Ordway v. Karibu Props., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…presumed or is proven directly.” Tanner v. Robinson, 411 So. 2d 240, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Florida courts also recognize “a presumption of a gift as a result of [the donee’s] name appearing on the subject stock certificate.” Mercurio v. Urban, 552 So. 2d 236, 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Here, the evidence presented at trial clearly showed, and the trial court properly found, that donative intent was established. Elinka undisputedly intended to transfer her 100 shares in Karibu I to her son’s company, Ka…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sullivan v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Inc., 230 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)