MABEL J. BLAIR, A. FRED BLAIR, HOWARD BLAIR, J. B. DRYDEN, RUTH D. HALE, DORRIS D. MILLER AND LOUISE D. DUKE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THEODORE V. RAMSEY, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Undue Influence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, in a suit to set aside a deed and for other equitable relief. The trial court had two basic factual issues to resolve. One was whether or not the grantor of certain real estate in Orange County, Florida, had capacity to execute a deed on IS March 1966, and the other is whether or not that deed was the product of fraud or undue influence. From our review of the record we conclude that there was competent substantial evidence in the record to support the implied finding of the trial judge that no fraud or undue influence was practiced and that the grantor was competent. We have also reviewed each of the other points presented by the appellants and conclude that they do not demonstrate reversible error.
The judgment is affirmed. See In re Estate of Carpenter, Fla.App. 1970, 239 So. 2d 506 and In re Starr’s Estate, 1935, 125 Fla. 536, 170 So. 620.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, REED and MAGER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tosohatchee Game Preserve v. Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist., 265 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1972)…se it delegated to the attorney for the Flood Control District the authority to determine what property was to be condemned. Accordingly, both the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, entered on April 23, 1971, and reported at 245 So. 2d 285, and the separate order denying attorney’s fees in the cause, are vacated. Inasmuch as Fla.Stat. § 73.131(2), F.S.A., expressly provides that attorney’s fees for services rendered in the District Court are to be assessed by that Court, the cause is…
-
Gulf Power Co. v. Stack, 296 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…st harsh proceedings known to the law, consequently ... a strict construction will be given against the agency asserting the power.’ ” To identical impact is this court’s own decision in Chalmers v. Florida Power and Light Company, Fla.App. 1, 1971, 245 So. 2d 285, 287[1], Condemnees Stack and Mayo, then, urging the substance of the foregoing observations in their oral argument and as Point II in their brief, and finding technical protection of their right to do so in ground 1 of their cross assignment of er…
-
Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. City OF Miami, 346 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…and the estate or interest in the property which the condemnation authority intends to acquire. See Section 73.021, Florida Statutes (1975), supra; City of Miami v. Wolfe, 150 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963): Chalmers v. Florida Power & Light Company, 245 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Resolution no. 42,569, passed and adopted by the City on June 18, 1971, attached to the City’s amended petition of January 23, 1975 reads in toto: $ Sf! ijt S}{ Sfc Sfc “RESOLUTION NO. 42569 “A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRE…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re the Est. of Clara R. Starr v. Wilson, 125 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1935)
- In re Est. of Coketine Bray Carpenter, 239 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)