VAUGHN
v.
MANDIS
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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether property transferred from a corporation to a husband and wife could be seized to satisfy a pre-existing judgment against the husband. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the property was held as an estate by the entireties and thus not subject to the judgment.
No, the property is not subject to the writ of execution. The court held that the property, having been conveyed into an estate by the entireties between Demos Mandis and Margaret W. Mandis, was not subject to a levy based on a judgment against Demos Mandis alone.
“The controlling question presented on this appeal is whether the real and personal property described in the pleadings is subject to levy and sale under a writ of execution based on a final judgment in the sum of $4,000.00, and interest, entered in the Circuit Court of Highlands County, Florida, during the year 1938 against Demos Mandis, which judgment was assigned to and is now owned by the appellant, A.P. Vaughn.”
States the central legal question of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA judgment was entered against Demos Mandis in 1938. Later, Demos and his wife Margaret conveyed real estate, some originally held by them as tenants …
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 Judgment Lien Attachment cases and more on FLexlaw
CHAPMAN, Justice.
The controlling question presented on this appeal is whether the real and personal property described in the pleadings is subject to levy and sale under a writ of execution based on a final judgment in the sum of $4,000.00, and interest, entered in the Circuit Court of Highlands County, Florida, during the year 1938 against Demos Mandis, which judgment was assigned to and is now owned by the appellant, A.P. Vaughn.
The real estate, as shown by the record, was obtained from different sources and each deed or conveyance was made to Demos Mandis and wife, Margaret W. Mandis, except in one or two conveyances when the only named grantee was Margaret W. Mandis. Demos Mandis and wife, Margaret W. Mandis, in 1940 conveyed the described real estate to the Mandis Stock Farm, Inc., a Florida corporation in which Margaret W. Mandis had forty-nine shares, Demos Mandis one share and John S. Francis was given ten shares of preferred stock.
The Mandis Stock Farm, Inc., after organization, engaged in the dairy business when personal property was accumulated, along with debts and other obligations. On December 28, 1943, the Circuit Court of Hardee County appointed trustees for the Mandis Stock Farm, Inc., and the corporation was dissolved. At the time of the dissolution Margaret W. Mandis and Demos Mandis owned 353 shares and Phillip Boardman was the owner of one share. The court order directed the trustees to pay to the creditors of the Mandis Stock Farm, Inc., the amount of the net profits arising from the operation of the dairy.
The Circuit Court of Hardee County, on November 17, 1943, entered another order involving the creditors and stockholders of the Mandis Stock Farm, Inc., and the decree recited that Margaret W. Mandis and husband, Demos Mandis, owned 353 shares of stock in the corporation and Phillip Boardman owned one. The real and personal property of the Mandis Stock Farm, Inc., pursuant to a court order, was transferred or conveyed by the court appointed trustees. This order recited the proportionate interests of the stockholders in the Mandis Stock Farm, Inc., as follows:
Demos Mandis was declared the owner of 49.77% Margaret W. Mandis " " " " 49.77% Phillip Boardman " " " " .46%
In an order dated February 12, 1951, the lower Court held that the real and personal property conveyed by the trustees of the Mandis Stock Farm, Inc., pursuant to a court order, into Demos Mandis and Margaret W. Mandis was held as an estate by the entireties and was not subject to a levy under the writ of execution based on a judgment rendered in 1938 against Demos Mandis.
Thus it appears that most of the described real estate was held as an estate by the entireties when the appellees conveyed the same into their corporation known as the Mandis Stock Farm, Inc. The corporation, as shown by the record, had financial troubles, when the Court appointed trustees for it. The real property of the corporation *706 was conveyed pursuant to a Court order and the respective interests of the appellees in the corporation and clearly defined, as above set out. It is under this provision of the record that the appellant asserts that the lien of his judgment attached. This contention must be considered in light of all the documentary evidence considered by the Court when the decree below was entered. The Chancellor concluded that our holding in Ohio Butterine Co. v. Hargrave, 79 Fla. 458, 84 So. 376, and similar adjudications, were controlling and the evidence considered as a whole sustained the conclusion. It has not been made clearly to appear that the lower Court erred in entering the decree appealed from.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Providence Square Ass'n, Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1987)…own to be clearly erroneous. Tatum v. City Building & Loan Association, 76 Fla. 258, 260, 79 So. 839, 839 (1918); Baldwin v. Christopher, 75 Fla. 605, 615, 79 So. 339, 342 (1918); Rosenthal, 74 Fla. at 381, 77 So. at 94. See also Hopping v. Lovejoy, 53 So. 2d 704, 704 (Fla. 1951) (chancellor should accept master’s findings of facts showing entitlement to reformation, where supported by evidence). We find the trial court’s findings and judgment amply supported by legally sufficient evidence. Accordingly, we…
-
Claughton v. Claughton, 347 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…reverse. The findings of fact and recommendations of a special master should be approved and adopted by the chancellor unless clearly erroneous or it appears that the master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence. See Hopping v. Lovejoy, 53 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1951); Moncrief v. Hall, 63 So. 2d 640 (Fla.1953); Frank v. Frank, 75 So. 2d 282 (Fla.1954); Hartnett v. Lotauro, 82 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1955); Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255 (Fla.1956). In the case at bar no record of the proceedings accompanied…
-
Sitomer v. Sitomer, 397 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…y alimony. It has long been the law in Florida that a trial judge may not reject a master’s findings of fact unless the court concludes that the findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Moncrief v. Hall, 63 So. 2d 640 (Fla.1953); Hopping v. Lovejoy, 53 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1951); Harmon v. Harmon, 40 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1949). “Of course, the master’s findings of fact would be clearly erroneous if the record should fail to contain evidence in support thereof which is both competent and substantial.” Frank v. Frank, 7…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Ohio Butterine Co. v. Hargrave, 79 Fla. 458 (Fla. 1920)
- Vaughn v. Mandis, 53 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1951)