IN RE ESTATE OF JORDAN D. HARRIS, DECEASED. PENNIE LEE HARRIS, AS THE WIDOW OF JORDAN D. HARRIS, AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF SAID DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
WILBUR C. SIMS AND MICHEALANE SIMS, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1972-11-21
No. 72-274
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
269 So. 2d 56 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1972)

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

Pennie Lee Harris appealed the trial court's denial of her dower petition and estoppel from asserting dower rights in property her deceased husband conveyed without her joinder. The court affirmed the estoppel, finding that Harris's settlement agreement, fourteen-month silence, and waiver of dower rights in reliance on which the buyers improved the property and made mortgage payments created equitable estoppel.


Holding

The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the dower petition and estoppel ruling, holding that Harris's settlement agreement, waiver, and fourteen-month silence, combined with the Simses' reasonable reliance through property improvements and mortgage payments, established the requisite elements of equitable estoppel to preclude her inconsistent claim.


Headnotes

[1] A widow may be estopped from asserting a dower claim if her actions and representations lead a purchaser to believe no such claim would be forthcoming, and the purchaser…

[2] A party's willful actions and representations can estop them from asserting a position inconsistent with their prior conduct.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Appellant's willful actions in this cause prompted appellees to believe that no claim for dower could be forthcoming from appellant. In reliance upon appellant's representations, appellees improved the property and performed the other acts enumerated above.”

Establishes the first element of estoppel: the appellant's conduct created a reasonable belief that no dower claim would follow.

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

Jordan D. Harris conveyed real property to Wilbur and Michealane Sims in November 1968, representing himself as single and conveying without his wife'…

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 an appeal from the lower court’s order which denied appellant Pennie Lee Harris’ petition for assignment of dower and estopped her from asserting any right to dower in property formerly owned by her deceased husband.

Jordan D. Harris, appellant’s husband, conveyed a parcel of real property to ap-pellees, Wilbur C. Sims and Michealane Sims, his wife, in November 1968 subject to a first mortgage and a purchase money second mortgage. Harris, by affidavit, represented himself to the appellees as a single man and he conveyed the subject property without the joinder of his wife. *57Following Harris’ death in September 1969 appellant contacted her husband’s former attorney who then reviewed with appellant the various options available to her under the law relative to claiming a dower interest in the real property and/or an intestate share of the purchase money mortgage encumbering the real property. A settlement of the appellant’s rights was reached wherein appellant agreed to waive her dower claim to the property and accept her intestate share of the mortgage. Appellant executed a petition for order of administration unnecessary and agreed to have ap-pellees make the payments due appellant to her attorney’s trust account.

For a fourteen month period following the settlement, appellees made the required payments to the trust account and in reliance upon the settlement they made improvements in the property, paid taxes, insurance premiums and .they continued to make the mortgage payments on the first mortgage. In March 1971 appellant filed a petition for letters of administration in this cause and in April 1971 she filed her election to take dower and had it served upon the appellees. The trial court denied the petition for assignment of dower and es-topped appellant from claiming any right, title or interest in the subject property.

Appellant’s willful actions in this cause prompted appellees to believe that no claim for dower could be forthcoming from appellant. In reliance upon appellant’s representations, appellees improved the property and performed the other acts enumerated above. All of these circumstances taken together produce the necessary elements for an estoppel against appellant which will now preclude her from attempting to maintain a position inconsistent with her earlier position. Barsumian v. Barsumian, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 515; United Contractors, Inc. v. United Construction Corp., Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 695.

The application of the doctrine of estop-pel to cases involving a widow’s claim for dower has been repeatedly approved by the Florida courts if the requisite elements are established. Johnson v. Hayes, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 109; LaMar v. Lechlider, 135 Fla. 703, 185 So. 833 (1939); Robison v. Krause, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 373; Youngelson v. Youngelson’s Estate, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 642; Wax v. Wilson, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 54.

Therefore, having determined that the trial judge committed no error, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw