DAVID ALBERT WRIGHT, AS ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
RALPH TOMPSON BROWN, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
David Albert Wright, as administrator of his deceased wife's intestate estate, claimed the entire $30,000 estate as a gift from his wife, while Louisiana residents claiming to be the adopted children of Jessie Brow Bovert asserted a claim to half the estate based on alleged adoption. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that no completed gift was shown and that the Michigan adoption, while valid under full faith and credit principles, was not determinative of the estate's distribution.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that no completed gift was shown by the evidence, as the evidence demonstrated intention but fell short of showing the intention was perfected. The adoption proceedings in Michigan were substantially in compliance with Michigan law and must be given full faith and credit in Florida under the Federal Constitution, but this did not alter the disposition of the estate.
“There is evidence that shows an intention on the part of testatrix to make the gift but it falls short of showing that her intention was perfected.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that while gift intent was shown, no completed gift occurred
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSophia Rose Wright died intestate in Hillsborough County in November 1938, leaving a husband (David Albert Wright) but no children or near relatives. …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gift Causa Mortis cases and more on FLexlaw
Sophia Rose Wright died intestate in Hillsborough County in November, 1938, leaving a husband but no children or near relatives surviving her. David Albert Wright, her husband, qualified as administrator of her estate which consisted of approximately $30,000 on deposit in two Tampa banks. The appellees, all residents of Louisiana, filed a claim with the probate judge for one-half of the •estate alleging that they were the children of Jessie Brow Bovert Brown, who they say was adopted by Sophia Rose Wright and a former husband, Albert Bovert, in the State of Michigan.
David Albert Wright filed his bill of complaint in the circuit court against appellees and the probate judge as defendants claiming the entire estate as a gift causa mortis or in the alternative as a gift inter vivos made by his wife August 6, 1938. On final hearing, the chancellor found that there was no gift to David Albert Wright by his wife and decreed accordingly. This appeal is from the final •decree.
Two questions are here to be answered, viz.: (1) Was there a gift caus,a mortis or inter vivos passing from Sophia Rose Wright to her husband, David Albert Wright, and (2) Was the adoption of Jessie Brow Bovert by the testatrix in Michigan legally sufficient to make it valid in Florida?
Both these questions turn on the showing made by the •evidence. It is not necessary to discuss the essential elements of a gift c/ausa mortis or a gift inter vivos. The evidence in this point fails to show a completed gift and is in other respects insufficient to warrant -us in overruling' the •chancellor. There is evidence that shows an intention on *574the part of testatrix to make the gift but it falls short of showing that her intention was perfected.
As to the adoption of Jessie Brow Bovert, the evidence shows that the adoption proceedings were substantially in compliance with the Michigan law, similar proceedings were shown to have been approved by the courts of that State and under Section 1, Article IV of the Federal Constitution, should be given full faith and credit in this State.
From this, it follows that the judgment below be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Terrell, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kupec v. Cooper, 593 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…orida. Section 63.192, Fla.Stat. (1991). If the evidence shows that the adoption proceedings were in compliance with another state’s law and that law is similar to the law of Florida, then Florida will give it full faith and credit. Wright v. Brown, 146 Fla. 572, 1 So. 2d 871 (1941). However, Florida courts need not adhere to or enforce an adoptive status or the rights flowing therefrom when the adoption is repugnant to the laws or policies of Florida. Tsilidis v. Pedakis, 132 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) (…