JOHN J. CARBERRY, AS BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF COLUMBUS, OHIO, A CORPORATION SOLE, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH GIBSON FOLEY; FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AT MIAMI, A NATIONAL BANKING INSTITUTION; FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK AT CORAL GABLES, A NATIONAL BANKING INSTITUTION; AND JOHN D. CONNOR, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE H. FOLEY, DECEASED, APPELLEES; JOHN J. CARBERRY, AS BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF COLUMBUS, OHIO, A CORPORATION SOLE; AND JOSEPH GIBSON FOLEY, APPELLANTS, V. FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AT MIAMI, A NATIONAL BANKING INSTITUTION; FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK AT CORAL GABLES, A NATIONAL BANKING INSTITUTION; AND JOHN D. CONNOR, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE H. FOLEY, DECEASED, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1968-08-20
Nos. 67-1030, 67-1061
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
213 So. 2d 635 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1968) Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 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

In this third appearance before the appellate court, Carberry (Bishop of the Diocese of Columbus) appealed a trial court judgment dismissing the defendant banks and directing an accounting by Joseph Gibson Foley to the Estate of George H. Foley regarding disputed brokerage accounts. The court affirmed the dismissal of the banks and the accounting decree, finding insufficient evidence of Carberry's ownership interest in the contested account.


Holding

The trial court properly dismissed the banks because the evidence failed to demonstrate they honored checks that were endorsed in an unauthorized manner. The constructive trust claim failed because Carberry failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence his ownership interest in Account 620-6870. The court correctly required Foley to account to the Estate of George H. Foley, as the only evidence showed the account belonged to the deceased.


Key Quotes

“in order to establish such it is necessary that the plaintiff prove with clear and convincing proof the existence of such”

Establishes the high evidentiary standard required to prove a constructive trust claim

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

Carberry sought to establish a constructive trust over certain brokerage accounts and an accounting from Joseph Gibson Foley. A key disputed account w…

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.

This is the third appearance of this cause in this court. See our prior opinion in Carberry v. Foley, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 214, in which the complaint seeking to establish a constructive trust and an accounting is analyzed and the dismissal of one of the original defendants is approved. Also see Carberry v. Foley, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 425, wherein this court recognized the right of the trial court to continue with an accounting as to certain accounts which are not involved in this appeal. Reference should be made to the prior opinions which outlines the circumstances under which the instant action was commenced.

At the time the matter came on for final hearing, the trial judge dismissed the defendant banks at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s [Carberry] case, and the cause proceeded against the original defendant, Joseph Gibson Foley, and the estate of the late George H. Foley represented by John D. Connor, Administrator. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court directed the defendant, Joseph Gibson Foley, to account to the plaintiff for two accounts, which are referred to in our prior opinion in Carberry v. Foley, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 425, and directed said defendant to account to the plaintiff, John D. Connor, as Administrator of the Estate of George H. Foley, for the remaining account, being that referred to as Our Lady of Peace Church Rev. George H. Foley, No. 620-6870, maintained with Francis I. duPont & Co. The trial judge found that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove a constructive trust as to Account No. 620-6870 and made the following finding pertaining thereto:

>k * * ‡ * *
“The evidence is insufficient to establish a constructive trust in favor of the Plaintiff in and to the remaining securities and assets which were held in the brokerage account in Francis I. duPont & Co. in the name of Our Lady of Peace Church ,Rev. George H. Foley, the same being account No. 620-6870. However, all of the parties which might have any interest in this account are before this Court, and it appears to this Court that JOHN D. CONNOR, as Administrator of the Estate of George H. Foley, Deceased, is entitled to an accounting of and from the Defendant, JOSEPH GIBSON FO*637LEY, such accounting to reveal and reflect the source of the funds and assets in the said account entitled Our Lady of Peace Church Rev. George H. Foley, and also to reflect the disposition of said funds, including the tracing of such assets to the present time.”

He did preserve any other rights the plaintiff might have against the late George H. Foley, as follows:

>¡C if? ‡ ‡ ifc ‡
“This decree should not and does not bar any other actions the Plaintiff might have based on causes of action other than constructive trust.”

Thereupon the plaintiff in the trial court, John J. Carberry, filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the final judgment exonerating the banks from liability, which was filed in this court under Clerk’s file No. 67-1030. The plaintiff also took an appeal seeking a review of the decree to account, wherein the trial judge had directed that the accounting by Joseph Gibson Foley be made to the estate of George H. Foley. The appeal was assigned Clerk’s file No. 67-1061, and joinder of appeal was filed by the defendant,1 Joseph Gibson Foley.

The causes were consolidated for the purposes of record and oral argument and individual briefs were filed on behalf of the respective parties. The original appellant, Carberry, has preserved as his points on appeal for review the dismissal of the banks upon their motion at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, and the holding by the trial court that he had failed to maintain his burden of proof. The appellant, Joseph Gibson Foley, has preserved by his points on appeal whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit certain evidence, and erred in requiring him to account to the Estate of George H. Foley without any pleadings supporting such a claim. We affirm.

As to the propriety of the dismissal of the banks, the evidence fails to demonstrate that either of the banks honored checks that were endorsed in an unauthorized manner. Tampa Wholesale Co. v. Foodtown, U.S.A., Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 711; Gibson v. Gibson, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 388; Groover v. Adiv Holding Company, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 103; Rule 1.420(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 Lady of Peace Church Rev. George H. Foley, No. 620-6870, and the only evi dence in explanation of this account is that it belonged to the late George H. Foley. Further, Joseph Gibson Foley having admitted that at the time of the death of George H. Foley the funds in this account belonged to the deceased, the trial judge was eminently correct in his requiring Joseph Gibson Foley to account to the Estate of George H. Foley for this fund. As pointed out above by the trial judge, all the parties were before the court and we find no error in this regard. Ward v. Hopkins, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 493; Skillman v. Baker, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 113; Sydney Paper Co. v. Gans, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 41. We have also examined the alleged error in the ruling as to the admissibility of certain evidence and find this point not to be well taken. Cole v. Cole, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 126; Alvarez v. Dumont, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 352; Barrineau v. B & F Auto Parts, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 53.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment under review in Case *638No. 67-1030 be and the same is hereby affirmed. The decree to account, review of which is sought in Case No. 67-1061, be and the same is hereby affirmed, with directions to the trial court to require amended pleadings to be filed by the Estate of George H. Foley, setting up its claim to Account No. 620-6870, with an appropriate time to respond thereto being given to Joseph Gibson Foley and that, following issues being made by such amended pleadings, the court proceed further.

Affirmed, with directions.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Hiestand v. Geier, 396 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
    …ock 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 constructive trusts. Brown v. Vining, 334 So. 2d 647 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Carberry v. Foley, 213 So. 2d 635 (Fla.3d DCA 1968), cert, denied 222 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1969). The 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,…
  • Kramer v. Freedman, 272 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
    …by way of two separate and independent grounds, either of which alone could have supported his conclusion. It is, of course, necessary to prove the existence of a constructive trust by clear and convincing evidence. Carberry v. Foley, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 635. The doctrine of constructive trust is well established in Florida law and the courts will impose the same where “one, through actual fraud, abuse of confidence reposed and accepted, or through other questionable means gains something for himself wh…
  • Steinhardt v. Steinhardt, 445 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
    …red by law, to establish a prima facie case for the imposition of a construe- [*356] tive trust in favor of the above-stated plaintiffs in their individual capacities. See, e.g., Brown v. Vining, 334 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Carberry v. Foley, 213 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1969). It is settled that a constructive trust is imposed by a court of equity “to prevent an unjust enrichment of one person at the expense of another as the result of fraud, undue influence, ab…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (16 total)

View all 16 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw