JAMES B. MCDONOUGH, JR., AS ADMINISTRATOR C. T. A. D. B. N. OF THE ESTATE OF C. A. RUDISILL, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
KAY RUDISILL, A/K/A DOROTHY KAY RUDISILL, APPELLEE, AND HENRY RUDISILL, A/K/A HENRY CLIFFORD RUDISILL, II, A/K/A CLIFFORD RUDISILL, II, 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.
This case concerns whether a decedent made a completed gift of stock certificates to his niece and nephew, and whether they subsequently gifted them back to him. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the initial gift was completed, but that there was no valid gift back to the decedent.
Yes, the decedent made a completed gift of the stock certificates to his niece and nephew. No, the niece and nephew did not make a gift of the certificates back to the decedent.
“It is not disputed that with their authority he sold the certificates, but made no subsequent accounting to appellees prior to his death.”
Establishes the factual basis for the dispute regarding the stock certificates.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe administrator of a decedent's estate appealed judgments awarding appellees (the decedent's niece and nephew) the value of stock certificates. The …
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.
The administrator of the estate of C. A. Rudisill, deceased, directly appeals from the judgments herein in favor of appellees, in which the trial court awarded appellees a sum equal to the value of certain stock certificates which had passed from the decedent during his lifetime to appellees and subsequently delivered back by appellees for, they now say, his convenience. It is not disputed that with their authority he sold the certificates, but made no subsequent accounting to appellees prior to his death.
The issues in these consolidated cases center around first, whether the decedent made a completed gift to his niece and nephew, the appellees Kay Rudisill and Henry Clifford Rudisill, II, respectively; and secondly, whether they subsequently made a gift back. The record abounds with evidence from which the trial court could, as it did, answer the first question in the affirmative, and is completely devoid of competent evidence from which it could find, and it did not so find, a gift back.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby,
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. Hoenigmann, 525 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…, competent evidence, we affirm the Final Judgment. See Brown v. Taylor, 500 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Brown v. Vining, 334 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); In re Estate of Agardy v. Dunn, 293 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); McDonough v. Rudisill, 229 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 237 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1970); Carberry v. Foley, 213 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1969). Affirmed.…
-
McDONOUGH v. Rudisill, 237 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 229 So. 2d 268.…