HELEN ESTEY AND CARL A. ESTEY, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
HUNTER J. VIZOR, FORMERLY ALFIO S. TROJA, 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 equity appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's decree establishing a resulting trust in real property, holding that the chancellor applied the wrong standard of proof. The court reaffirmed that resulting trusts must be established by clear, strong, and unequivocal evidence that removes all reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence.
A resulting trust cannot be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Rather, the evidence must be so clear, strong, and unequivocal as to remove from the mind of the trier of fact every reasonable doubt as to the existence of the trust. The decree must be reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard of proof.
“To establish a resulting trust the established rule requires that the evidence must be so clear, positive and unequivocal as to dispel from the mind of the trier of the facts all reasonable doubts as to the existence of the trust.”
Establishes the correct legal standard for proving resulting trusts in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHunter J. Vizor filed a complaint in equity seeking a decree that certain lands held in the names of appellants Helen and Carl Estey were held in a re…
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 Quantum Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee Hunter J. Vizor, the plaintiff below, filed a complaint in equity in *577the circuit court in Dade County. He sought and obtained a decree holding that certain lands, the title to which was in the appellant-defendants, were held by them in a resulting trust for him.
The chancellor held for the plaintiff, but based his ruling on finding that the preponderance of the evidence favored the plaintiff.
The learned chancellor was in error in deciding the case on the quantum of proof represented by a preponderance of the evidence. To establish a resulting trust the established rule requires that the evidence must be so clear, positive and unequivocal as to dispel from the mind of the trier of the facts all reasonable doubts as to the existence of the trust.
The case of Goldman v. Olsen, 159 Fla. 435, 31 So.2d 623, 624, dealt with the question, stated the rule and cited the authorities in support thereof, as follows:
“* * * The object of this suit was to establish a resulting trust in her favor and, in such case, the more burdensome rule prevails, requiring that the quantum of proof must be such that the 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. See Lofton v. Sterrett, 23 Fla. 565, 2 So. 837; Geter v. Simmons, 57 Fla. 423, 49 So. 131; Johnston v. Sherehouse, 61 Fla. 647, 54 So. 892; Burgess v. Wirt, 91 Fla. 425, 108 So. 169; Brown v. Brown, 106 Fla. 423, 143 So. 737; Frank v. Eeles, 152 Fla. 869, 13 So.2d 216, and Powell v. Race, 151 Fla. 536, 10 So.2d 142, and cases there cited. There is no rule of evidence more strongly imbedded in our jurisprudence.”
The decree must be reversed, and, following the procedure employed in the Goldman case, the cause is remanded for reconsideration of the evidence, upon applying the rule as to the stricter quantum of proof as indicated above, for redetermination and disposition accordingly.
In addition to ruling on the cause of action referred to above, the chancellor had before him for consideration a claim of the plaintiff against another parcel, based on different grounds. The decree of the chancellor made no disposition thereof.
An assignment of error was directed to the failure of the court to decide the issue relating to that second parcel. Appellant points out that the property is clouded by the plaintiff’s claims as asserted against it in the suit. We agree that disposition thereof should be made of that issue upon remand of the cause.
Accordingly, the decree appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hiestand v. Geier, 396 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…159 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1963); Goldman v. Olsen, 159 Fla. 435, 31 So. 2d 623 (1947); Geter v. Simmons, 57 Fla. 423, 49 So. 131 (1909); Har-nish v. Peale, 386 So. 2d 8 (Fla.5th DCA 1980); Jones v. Jones, 140 So. 2d 318 (Fla.3d DCA 1962); Estey v. Vizor, 113 So. 2d 576 (Fla.3d DCA 1959), the “clear and convincing evidence” standard is also found. Peacock v. Firman, 177 So. 2d 560 (Fla.3d DCA), cert, denied, 183 So. 2d 215 (Fla.1965). “Clear and convincing” is also the standard of evidence required to prove constru…
-
Carberry v. Foley, 213 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)….420(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. As to the ruling on the constructive trust, in order to establish such it is necessary that the plaintiff prove with clear and convincing proof the existence of such. Estey v. Vizor, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 576; Sottile v. Mershon, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 481; Fraser v. Lewis, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 684. The record in this case is devoid of any evidence of any ownership in Account No. 620-6870 by the plaintiff. The account was carried in the name of Our…
-
Sottile v. Mershon, 166 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…d unequivocal as to remove every reasonable doubt as to its existence. Lofton v. Sterrett, 23 Fla. 565, 2 So. 837; Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 54 A.L.R. 1173; Lightfoot v. Rogers, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 237; Estey v. Vizor, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 576. Furthermore, where the record contains evidence sufficient to support the finding of the chancellor, this Court will not substitute its judgment for his. Rudolph v. Rudolph, Fla.App.1962, 146 So. 2d 397. Upon a review of the record in the light of…
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
- Wyatt J. Geter v. Simmons, 57 Fla. 423 (Fla. 1909)
- Lofton v. Sterrett, 23 Fla. 565 (Fla. 1887)
- Johnston v. Sherehouse, 61 Fla. 647 (Fla. 1911)
- Brown v. Brown, 106 Fla. 423 (Fla. 1932)
- Frank v. Eeles, 152 Fla. 869 (Fla. 1943)
- Goldman v. Olsen, 159 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1947)
- Burgess v. Erle L. Wirt, 91 Fla. 425 (Fla. 1926)
- Powell v. Austin T. Race and his wife, 151 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1942)