Rowland v. McCall

Decision Date23 March 1960
Docket NumberNo. 1094,1094
PartiesSarah ROWLAND, Appellant, v. Margaret Blanche Brown Polk McCALL and Grover C. Howell, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

William P. Tomasello, Monterey Campbell, Bartow, and Fred T. Saussy, Jr., Tampa, for appellant.

Holland, Bevis, McRae & Smith, Bartow, for appellee, Margaret Blanche Brown Polk McCall.

KANNER, Acting Chief Judge.

This litigation was instituted by Sarah Rowland for the purpose of having the court declare as void a deed dated August 3, 1950, through which the now deceased sister of Sarah, Annie E. Shumate, conveyed to their niece, Margaret Blanche Brown Polk McCall, certain property willed to her by her brother, Thomas Shumate, Jr. The basis upon which the suit was brought was that the appellee-defendant had occupied a confidential and fiduciary relationship with the deceased and that through this relationship she procured execution of the deed. The chancellor in his final decree upheld the deed, and this appeal questions his findings.

The record of testimony consists of 1,479 pages. This is a story depicting present day activities of a family who chose a pioneer American way of life. Annie E. Shumate, herself an anachronism, is the main character. The story began sometime in the 1880's when Thomas Shumate, Sr., and his wife Jennie, Annie's parents, purchased around twenty-five acres of land in Bartow, Florida, and established what is now known as the Shumate homeplace. There they operated a dairy farm which eventually expanded to approximately fifty-seven acres. There were nine Shumate children, six of whom, including Annie, maintained throughout the years the same pattern of living for which their parents set the example, an existence in which frugality, austerity, and industry were the keynotes. These six were never married but remained on the homeplace until they died, except that Annie E. Shumate moved to Delaware shortly before her death to live with her niece, Blanche, the appellee. There were only two Shumate sons, Thomas, Jr., and David. These two in time acquired 200 acres of land separate from the Shumate family property, where they farmed and raised cattle; and it is this land about which the present controversy centers.

By the advent of the year 1921, the Shumate household consisted of the elder Shumates, their unmarried daughters, and two bachelor sons, all living in an unpainted house which boasted no electricity, no plumbing, and none of the usual conveniences which contemporary living at that time customarily afforded. All members of the household contributed, by dint of hard work, to the operation of the dairy farm. No one was paid a salary and all proceeds went back into the common till for needed expenses and operation of the farm. One of the sisters, Sarah, the appellant, married in 1921 and moved away; then in 1922, both the elder Shumates died. The next big change to occur in the lives of the Shumates residing on the homeplace was in 1925 when Blanche, then less than two years old, came to live with them. Her mother, Mary Brown, who had also married and moved away, continued to reside in the community of Kathleen until 1938, returning then to live at the homeplace with Annie and Blanche.

Blanche became the common responsibility of her spinster aunts and bachelor uncles. From early childhood she shared the onerous farm life of her aunts and uncles, assuming her part of the chores and oftentimes laboring on the 200 acre farm with her uncles. Blanche lived at the Shumate homeplace until 1955, except for a short time in World War II when she was in military service. During that time she was married, later had a child, Mary Elizabeth, and was subsequently divorced, returning with her daughter to the Shumate homeplace in 1944. She attended Florida Southern College and received a degree, and she taught school in nearby Highland City from 1947 until 1955.

In 1942, seventeen years after Blanche had come to the homeplace to live, her Uncle Dave died. Tom, following his father's death, had been considered as head of the household, and after Dave died, Tom held legal title to the homeplace, the lands surrounding it, and the 200 acre farm which he and Dave had acquired. In 1947 Tom also died, leaving his entire estate to Annie. The only Shumate children who survived him were his sisters Annie, Sarah Rowland, and Mary Brown, mother of Blanche. Living at the homeplace were Annie, Mary Brown, Blanche, and Blanche's daughter, Mary Elizabeth. At the time, the 200 acre farm was appraised at $65,000 and the remainder of Tom's estate at about $41,000.

After Tom's death it was not long before, for the first time, the Shumate homeplace became illumined by electricity; a gas stove and gas refrigerator were acquired; modern plumbing was installed; the house was painted; the leaky roof was replaced with a new one; pastures were improved; modern forestation practices were introduced; and bank accounts were opened.

The dairy had been discontinued prior to the death of Tom. The work of the household after that consisted of raising crops and beef cattle. Annie, head of the household, was in her sixties; and she relied greatly upon Blanche, the only young person residing there, in the things that had to be done. Blanche was teaching school in the year her Uncle Tom died, and it was necessary that she do chores before and after school hours, working like a man, early and late. Thus, assisting her Aunt Annie with the farm operation, she did the necessary 'leg work' and whatever else her aunt wanted her to do. During the course of the years Annie and Blanche had developed a closeness each to the other resembling a mother-daughter relationship.

Annie, however, was shrewd and intelligent, firm and stubborn in her convictions, and remained not only the titular but the very active head of the family until she died, making her own decisions and staying, in the main, to herself and her family, seldom leaving...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Lamb v. Dade County, 63-151
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1964
    ...been in error and, therefore, his conclusions are hereby approved. See: Lamson v. Martin, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 117; Rowland v. McCall, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 846. In Paragraph 3 of the final decree, the chancellor granted the appellee the right to go upon the private waterway and the ab......
  • Parker v. Parker
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 3, 2016
    ...to set aside gifts and transfers made by decedent on the grounds that they were the product of undue influence); Rowland v. McCall, 118 So.2d 846, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960) (entertaining suit by decedent's sister to void deed on the grounds that decedent executed it as a result of undue influe......
  • Wrobbel v. Walda
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 30, 1968
    ...courts to give effect to findings made by the trier of facts if they are supported by substantial competent evidence. Rowland v. McCall, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 846; In re Thompson's Estate, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 911; In re Kiggins' Estate, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 915. Since the findings of the tri......
  • Hart v. Hart, L--67
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 5, 1969
    ...judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed. CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C.J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur. 1 Rowland v. McCall (Fla.App.1960), 118 So.2d 846; Marquette v. Hathaway (Fla.1954), 76 So.2d 648.2 Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson (Fla.App.1965), 177 So.2d 50;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT