WALTER H. KING; AND ROSCOE W. KING, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LIZZIE MAE KING, DECEASED, PETITIONERS,
v.
LOWELL KING, RESPONDENT
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 addresses the evidentiary standard required to establish an implied trust in real property. The Court holds that the District Court of Appeal incorrectly applied the standard for implied trusts by affirming based on conflicting evidence, when clear and convincing proof is required.
The District Court of Appeal incorrectly applied the law by affirming the implied trust finding without ensuring the evidence was of the clear and convincing character required. The opinion is quashed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard established in Davis v. Davis.
“The entire record discloses a strenuously litigated suit from beginning to end. On almost every phase of the evidence, there are conflicts and inconsistencies.”
District Court's characterization of the conflicting evidence, which the Supreme Court found to be an improper basis for affirming under the clear and convincing standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLowell King sought a divorce from her husband and sought a decree declaring that her deceased mother-in-law, Lizzie Mae King, held certain real proper…
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 Implied Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
This proceeding is before us on writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Second District. Petitioners are Walter H. King, divorced husband of the respondent, and Roscoe W. King, the administrator of the estate of Walter King’s deceased mother, Lizzie Mae King. The respondent is Lowell King who instituted the proceedings in the trial court in which she sought a decree of divorce and a decree holding that her husband’s mother held certain real property in trust for her and her husband.
A final decree was entered by the chancellor finding that the plaintiff wife was entitled to the divorce and that the property involved was held in trust by the defendant mother, Lizzie Mae King, for the husband and wife. The chancellor ordered the mother, since deceased, to convey to the plaintiff wife an undivided one-half interest to such property.
An appeal was taken to the district court of appeal by the defendant husband and the administrator of the estate of his deceased mother. The district court affirmed the chancellor’s decree. King v. King, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 259. The appellants therein then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to the district court and and we entered our order granting such petition. Oral argument was held therein and the cause is now before us for determination.
*34Petitioners maintain that the opinion of the district court of appeal is in direct conflict with one of this Court, Davis v. Davis, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 777, 780. In that case the chancellor held that an implied trust existed. This court reversed the chancellor saying that the proof “does not partake of the clear and convincing- character required to authorize the chancellor to set aside the transaction or raise the trust mentioned in the final decree.”
The parties do not dispute that in order to establish an implied trust the evidence before the chancellor must be of clear and convincing character. Petitioners argue that the effect of the opinion under review is that where the case is a close one and the evidence conflicting, the finding of an implied trust by the chancellor will be affirmed if the appellate court can find evidence to support the chancellor’s findings.
The words in the opinion of the district court which give good'cause to petitioners’ contention are found in 107 So.2d on pages 260-261:
“ * * * The entire record discloses a strenuously litigated suit from beginning to end. On almost every phase of the evidence, there are conflicts and inconsistencies. * * *
* * * * * *
“The evidence is conflicting. There is evidence to support the chancellor’s findings. Error has not been made to appear. The rule is that the chancellor’s findings on the facts will be accorded the same weight as the verdict of the jury, and a decree solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous. Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 So. 869 [this opinion does not involve a resulting trust].” (Emphasis added.)
The rule of law applicable to the character of evidence required in cases such as this was correctly stated in Davis v. Davis, supra, and is incorrectly stated in the above quoted portion of the opinion of the district court of appeal. The latter opinion being in conflict with the former must be quashed.
On this review by certiorari we have before us only the briefs of the parties and a transcript of record of 60 pages. The district court of appeal has the entire record on appeal consisting of some 940 pages. It is in better position than we to determine from the whole of the record whether the evidence before the chancellor was of the clear and convincing character required under the rule of the Davis case.
Accordingly, as we did in Van Fleet v. Lindgren, Fla.1958, 107 So.2d 381, the opinion of the district court of appeal is quashed and the cause remanded to that court for further consideration consistent with the views herein expressed.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hiestand v. Geier, 396 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…standard that “evidence must be so clear, strong, and unequivocal as to remove from the mind of the Chancellor every reasonable doubt as to the existence of the trust”, Goldman v. Olsen, supra at 624, is countermanded by the holding of King v. King, 111 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1959) that evidence of an implied trust must be of “clear and convincing character.” Upon consideration of the foregoing authorities, we conclude that the purpose of requiring more than a preponderance of the evidence is to compel a degree of…
-
Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Ahearn, 118 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1960)…r court to give such consideration is the district court of appeal, not this Court. Consequently, rather than granting this motion, we should and do remand this cause to the district court of appeal for further consideration. King v. King, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 33; Van Fleet v. Lindgren, Fla.1958, 107 So. 2d 381. Accordingly, the decision of the district court of appeal is hereby quashed and the cause remanded for consideration of the remaining two points raised on appeal. It is so ordered. THOMAS, C. J.,…
-
Peacock v. Firman, 177 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ent basis in the evidence to support the finding of the chancellor that the purpose of the advances was to establish a fund for the benefit of the appellee.” was in conflict with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida in King v. King, Fla.1959, 111 So. 2d 33. It is apparent to us that .the language in our opinion as pointed out by the appellant does appear to be a holding that only some evidence must appear in the record in order to support a finding -of a chancellor that an implied trust existed. ' Be…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287 (Fla. 1921)
- Waller van Fleet v. Lindgren, 107 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1958)
- King v. Lowell King, 107 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Davis v. Davis, 98 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1957)