WODONOS
v.
WODONOS ET AL.
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint seeking to establish a trust in real property conveyed to the defendant Sarah Wodonos. The court held that absent written evidence of a trust agreement, a parol declaration of trust in real property is unenforceable under Florida's Statute of Frauds, and that the pleading failed to allege facts supporting a resulting or constructive trust.
A voluntary conveyance of absolute title to real property vests ownership in the grantee free of any parol declaration of trust. The complaint failed to allege facts supporting a resulting or constructive trust, and absent written evidence of the trust as required by statute, the action was properly dismissed.
“declarations and creations of trust * * * shall be manifested and proved by some writing”
Statutory requirement under Florida Statutes Section 689.05 establishing the Statute of Frauds for trusts in real property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 14, 1950, Jose Singer conveyed a 25% interest in the Samart Apartments to both plaintiff and his daughter Sarah Wodonos. The deed placed t…
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 Declaration Of Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
WHITE, Associate Justice.
The question here is the sufficiency of an amended bill of complaint to state a case upon which the Court can declare a trust in plaintiff’s favor in real property, title to which is held by one of the defendants, Sarah Wodonos. The entire basis for the action is stated in plaintiff’s pleading as follows:
“The Plaintiff alleges that on December 14, 1950, subsequent to the marriage of the Plaintiff to the Defendant, Sarah Wodonos, on April 16, A. D. 1950, the Defendant, Jose Singer, father of the Defendant, Sarah Wodonos, conveyed to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Sarah Wodonos, a twenty five percent (25%) interest in and to that certain property known and described as the Samart Apartments, located at 1941 Park Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, more particularly described as [omitting description]; that such conveyance was a gift from the Plaintiff’s father-in-law to the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the use and benefit of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but that title to the property was placed solely in the name of the Defendant, Sarah Wodonos.”
The deed of conveyance to Sarah Wo-donos was not exhibited to the Court, nor is it shown that the trust upon which plaintiff relies was evidenced by a written document. No fraud, trickery, undue influence, or overreaching on the part of anyone is charged, nor is it suggested that the grantee had been informed' in any fashion whatsoever that a trust was intended, or that she was accepting a conveyance of real estate subject to a beneficial interest in another. In analyzing his pleading, we take the position that plaintiff has stated his case in the light most favorable to his right to relief. Sec. 689.05, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A. provides that “declarations and creations of trust * * * shall be manifested and proved by some writing * * Therefore we assume that had there been written evidence of the trust, either by the deed or by an independent document, plaintiff would have stated that fact in his complaint.
Obviously the Court cannot put into operation a desire on the grantor’s part which would nullify the statute. On the contrary, the grantor is unalterably bound to the legal effect of his acts, interpreted in the light of that statute.
It follows that the voluntary conveyance of the absolute title to real property vests ownership in the grantee, free of any parol declaration of trust.
Resulting and constructive trusts rest upon other principles that are fully recognized here. A study of those principles as outlined in the chapter entitled “Trusts Arising by Operation of Law—Resulting and Constructive Trusts” of 4 Pom.Eq.Jur. (5th ed.), p. 58, will demonstrate that “there is a dearth of allegation in the bill to support any of them.” See Rappaport v. Kalstein, 156 Fla. 722, 24 So. 2d 301, 302.
It follows that it was proper for the lower court to dismiss the action with prejudice.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C. J., and TERRELL and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willard v. Hallam, 132 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…omised to hold the properties in trust for her mother at the time she received them, such promise was an attempt to create an oral express trust and was unenforceable. See Mills v. Mills, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 298; Wodonos v. Wodonos, Fla., 1952, 62 So. 2d 78; Crockett v. Crockett, 1940, 145 Fla. 311, 199 So. 337; and section 689.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The judgment reason would not necessarily mean that Mrs. Hallam wanted to save the properties for herself; a desire by Mrs. Hallam to salvage some p…
-
Mitchell v. Grapes, 146 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…veyances. Mere want of consideration has never raised resulting trusts out of these: Young v. Peachy, 2 Atk., 256; Lloyd v. Spillet, 2 Id., 148; Leman v. Whitley, 4 Russ. 423; Sturtevant v. Sturtevant, 20 N.Y., 39.” In Wodonos v. Wodonos, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 78, our Supreme Court held that neither a resulting nor a constructive trust could be proven upon the allegations of a complaint that realty was conveyed by plaintiff’s father-in-law to plaintiff’s wife but intended as a gift to both plaintiff and his…
-
Chase v. Lennon E. Bowen, III, 771 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ders, which were adverse to hers. Accordingly, It would affirm, but remand with directions that Naomi be given an opportunity to replead against Bowen, See Henshall v. Lowe, 657 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Allen v. Leybourne. . Wodonos v. Wodonos, 62 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1952); Florida Farm Bureau General Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of No. America, 763 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Bross v. Wallace, 600 So. 2d 1198, 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). . This count asserted a third party beneficiary claim against Bowen based…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mollie Rappaport v. Frieda Kalstein, 156 Fla. 722 (Fla. 1946)
- Hamby v. State, 156 Fla. 707 (Fla. 1945)