GERTRUDE S. ZULLO, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH ZULLO, 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.
The court held that a release and quit-claim deed executed in contemplation of divorce were invalid when the parties reconciled, preserving joint ownership.
The parties executed a release and quit-claim deed in contemplation of divorce, but later reconciled. The ex-husband claimed ownership of one-half 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reconciliation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Gertrude S. Zullo, the former wife of Joseph Zullo, from a final judgment which found that the plaintiff, Joseph Zullo, was entitled to certain monies which represented one-half the payments on a mortgage in their joint names. We have not been furnished with a record of the evidence before the trial judge and appellant states that she accepts the findings of fact contained in the judgment. One of these findings of fact together with the conclusions of law is as follows:
“7. In this action Mr. Zullo alleges that he is the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the purchase money mortgage and note, and the Court concludes under the facts in this case, he is.
“The ‘Release’ and Quit-Claim Deed were executed by Mr. Zullo as a property settlement agreement in contemplation of a divorce to be obtained at that time-in 1963; the divorce, however, was not obtained at that time and the parties reconciled. The ‘Release’ and Quit-Claim Deed, therefore, are invalid and Mr. Zullo remained a joint owner of the property and, therefore, is entitled to a one-half interest in the note and mortgage.”
We hold that the court’s conclusion of law upon the facts stated is supported by the law stated in Weeks v. Weeks, 1940, 143 Fla. 686, 197 So. 393, 395.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
COX v. Kimi Lea COX, 659 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1995)…Weston v. Weston, 483 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (concluding that a wife was not entitled to continue to receive child support under the terms of a prior property settlement agreement after the wife remarried her former husband); Zullo v. Zullo, 317 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. discharged, 342 So. 2d 77 (Fla.1977) (concluding that a release and quit-claim deed to a purchase money mortgage and note executed as part of a prior property settlement agreement was rendered invalid by the reconciliation…
-
Thomas v. Randell D. Thomas, 571 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…that reconciliation of husband and wife and resumption of marital relations for any period of time will render a previous contract and settlement of property rights void.” See also Mills v. Mills, 460 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Zullo v. Zullo, 317 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), writ discharged, 342 So. 2d 77 (Fla.1977). The Delgado court noted “[t]his court has held that Weeks applies when the parties remarry each other, Weston v. Weston, 483 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Carter v. Carter, 309 So. 2d 6…
-
Gertrude S. Zullo v. Zullo, 342 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1977)…HATCHETT, Justice. We issued a writ of certiorari in this cause based upon an alleged conflict between the decision in this case reported at 317 So. 2d 453 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), and Weeks v. Weeks, 143 Fla. 686, 197 So. 393 (1940). Upon reviewing the briefs filed on the merits and the record, we are of the judgment that there is no conflict in decision and, accordingly, certiorari should not have been gra…
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
- Weeks v. Lotta N. Weeks, 143 Fla. 686 (Fla. 1940)