LUCY DAVIS MASON, APPELLANT,
v.
SALLY MASON, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1965-04-27
No. 64-821
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
174 So. 2d 620 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1965) Caution
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

Lucy Davis Mason sought declaratory relief regarding the validity of her marriage to Weary M. Mason and her rights to his estate, against Sally Mason who claimed to be his widow. The court held that Weary M. Mason was estopped from denying the validity of his marriage to Sally Mason, vesting the disputed properties in Sally Mason rather than Lucy Davis Mason.


Holding

The court held that Weary M. Mason was estopped from denying the validity of his marriage to Sally Mason because he induced her to enter into the marriage contract, live with him, and take title to properties in their joint names while she believed in good faith they were validly married. This estoppel is binding on Lucy Davis Mason as Mason's heir-at-law, and the titles to the properties are vested in Sally Mason.


Key Quotes

“the said WEARY M. MASON was at the time of said marriage, at the time of the purchase of the properties above-described and at all times during his lifetime estopped to deny the validity of his marriage to the Defendant, and estopped to deny the right of said Defendant to take title to said properties by survivorship, which such estoppel is binding upon the Plaintiff as the heir-at-law of the said WEARY M. MASON.”

Establishes the court's central holding regarding the estoppel doctrine and its binding effect on Lucy Davis Mason as the heir-at-law

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Lucy Davis Mason married Weary M. Mason on April 9, 1922, but the marriage was never formally dissolved despite a divorce suit filed in Marion County.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We adopt that portion of the opinion of the chancellor which is quoted below as the opinion of this court.

“THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the Complaint of Plaintiff, LUCY DAVIS MASON, for Declaratory Relief, the Answer, Counterclaim and Cross-Claim of Defendant, SALLY MASON, the Answer to Counterclaim by Plaintiff, and the Answer of MARTIN W. GARY, Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of WEARY M. MASON, deceased to Defendant’s Cross-Claim, and the amendment to Answer of Defendant, SALLY MASON, and the Court having heard the testimony of the Parties and considered the evidence, the Court finds as follows:
“1. That LUCY DAVIS MASON was married to the late WEARY M. MASON, on the 9th day of April, 1922, at Reddick, Florida; that a divorce suit was filed by WEARY M. MASON in the Circuit Court for Marion County, Florida, (Chancery No. 10936) against Plaintiff, but no Final Decree of Divorce was ever entered therein; that the marriage of Plaintiff to the said WEARY M. MASON was never dissolved by a Decree of Divorce prior to *621the death of the said WEARY M. MASON on or about February 3, 1962.
“2. That Defendant SALLY MASON entered into a marriage with WEARY M. MASON during his lifetime on or about March 10, 1942, at Dade City, Florida in the innocent belief that the said MASON was a single man; that thereafter, said Defendant lived with the said MASON as his wife until his death on or about February 3, 1962.
“3. That Plaintiff knew of the marriage of the late WEARY M. MASON to Defendant SALLY MASON, and that they were living together as husband and wife in Miami, Florida; that, notwithstanding said knowledge, Plaintiff asserted no rights or claims under her marriage to the late WEARY M. MASON during his lifetime.
“4. That during the purported marriage of Defendant and the said MASON, the Defendant and the said MASON acquired the following properties in the names of the said MASON and Defendant as husband and wife, which were still so held at the time of the •death of said MASON * *
'k H5 j}»
“5. That the funds for the purchase and payment of said properties were ■contributed by the late WEARY M. MASON and Defendant, the Defendant having contributed substantial amounts from her own funds therefor, as well as having paid substantial sums from her own funds for improvements to the properties during the lifetime of the said MASON and since his •death.”
* * * * *
“[T]he late WEARY M. MASON led the Defendant, SALLY MASON, to enter into a marriage contract with him on March 10, 1942, to live with him and care for him, and to the taking •of title to the above-described properties in their names as husband and wife, believing that they were in fact and in law husband and wife, and the said WEARY M. MASON was at the time of said marriage, at the time of the purchase of the properties above-described and at all times during his lifetime estopped to deny the validity of his marriage to the Defendant, and estopped to deny the right of said Defendant to take title to said properties by survivorship, which such estoppel is binding upon the Plaintiff as the heir-at-law of the said WEARY M. MASON.
“[B]y reason of the aforesaid estop-pel, the titles to the above-described properties are declared vested in Defendant SALLY MASON * * * ”

See Alexander v. Colston, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 673.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Jablonski v. Caputo, 297 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
    …ecessary to constitute a legal homestead would have been established by virtue of the decedent living with another wife. Pauline relies primarily upon the cases of Alexander v. Colston, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 673, and Mason v. Mason, Fla.App.3d, 1965, 174 So. 2d 620. In each of these cases an innocent woman who survived a man to whom she was ceremonially married was held to be entitled to property acquired as tenants by the entirety subsequent to the ceremony, even though he had never been divorced from his fir…
  • Art Peterson v. Spohrer, 257 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
    …legatees and devisees are also estopped, since they stand in the position of their ancestor. E. g. Alexander v. Colston, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 673; Pritchett v. Brevard Naval Stores Co., 134 Fla. 649, 185 So. 134 (1938); Mason v. Mason, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 620 ; 28 Am.Jur.2d, Estoppel and Waiver, §§ 119-120. Moreover, it is equally well established that there is such privity between a decedent and the personal representative of his estate that an estoppel arising by reason of a decedent’s conduct may be a…
  • Mason v. Mason, 183 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1965)
    …Certiorari denied without opinion. 174 So. 2d 620.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw