Bronstein v. Roth
| Decision Date | 31 March 1953 |
| Citation | 64 So.2d 272 |
| Parties | BRONSTEIN et al. v. ROTH. BRONSTEIN v. BRONSTEIN et ux. . Special Division B |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Horns & Ossinsky, Daytona Beach, for appellants.
Martin Segal and Robert L. Hodges, Orlando, for appellees.
Isidor Bronstein and his wife, Anna Bronstein, filed their bill for declaratory decree in the lower court on November 19, 1948, against Margaret Bronstein (their daughter-in-law) and Harold Bronstein (their minor grandson). The bill alleged that during his lifetime and prior to his marriage Abe Bronstein, their son, conveyed to the plaintiffs certain lands in Volusia County; that Abe later married Margaret and they had a child, Harold; that plaintiffs have had possession of the property since it was conveyed to them; that Abe died September 15, 1946, leaving as his sole heirs his wife, Margaret and son, Harold; that Margaret and Harold are asserting an interest in the real estate, 'claiming that said deed did not convey the above real estate to plaintiffs as an estate by the entirety but that said deed only gave the grantees therein a life estate * * * during their joint lives and during the life of the survivor of said grantees.' Plaintiffs prayed that a guardian be appointed for the minor; that the rights of the parties be determined and for other relief. A copy of the deed was attached to and made a part of the complaint, and the following are pertinent portions thereof:
'This indenture, Made this 25th day of September, A.D. 1940 between Abe Bronstein, a single man, of the County of Volusia, in the State of Florida, party of the first part, and Isidor Bronstein and Anna Bronstein, husband and wife, in an estate by the entirety, whose permanent address is Daytona Beach of the County of Volusia, in the State of Florida, parties of the second part,
'Witnesseth, That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable considerations, to him in hand paid by the said parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situated lying and being in the County of Volusia, State of Florida, to-wit:
'Lot No. 8, Braddock Park, according to and as shown on the map of said subdivision on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, in Map Book 5, page 183, and subject to existing restrictions that run with the land.
'Subject to mortgage held by First National Bank at Orlando, and all outstanding taxes.
'To have and to hold the same unto the said parties of the second part, or the survivor of either of them, during the remainder of the lives of the said parties of the second part.
'And the said party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the unlawful claims of all persons whomsoever.'
The instrument was correctly executed, acknowledged and recorded.
The defendants appeared in due course by their solicitors (no guardian having been appointed to represent the minor's interest as prayed) and filed a motion to dismiss, which was overruled by the lower court on February 17, 1951. This order allowed the defendants twenty days to answer. Certiorari was taken on this order and denied without comment. 60 So.2d 296.
On denial of certiorari the record shows that a written application was promptly made to the lower court by Margaret Bronstein for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the minor's interest and that said application was noticed for hearing before the lower court on April 28, 1952. At this hearing Margaret Bronstein orally moved the court for leave to file an answer. The next action, according to the record, was the entry of a 'Declaratory Final Decree' on May 15th, wherein both of the foregoing motions were denied and the subject property was decreed to be owned in fee simple by Isidor and Anna Bronstein as an estate by the entireties; that from the suggestion of death filed in said cause Isidor was deceased, and Anna was therefore decreed to be the owner of said lands in fee simple. Two weeks after the decree was pronounced but before it was filed, Anna died and a suggestion of her death was filed in said cause, whereupon an administrator ad litem was appointed for her.
Margaret and Harold have appealed from the final decree. They assign six errors. These assignments present three principal questions for our consideration, viz.: (1) the failure of the court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor; (2) the entry of the final decree without affording appellants an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eiges v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 17236–92.
...not be appointed where the interests of an infant litigant are adequately protected by a parent or natural guardian. Bronstein v. Roth, 64 So.2d 272 (Fla.1953); 43 C.J.S., Infants, sec. 223 (1978); see also Maugeri v. Plourde, 396 So.2d 1215 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981).6 In this case, it is appr......
-
Savage v. Rowell Distributing Corp.
...120 Fla. 243, 162 So. 521; Quigley v. Cremin, Fla.1926, 109 So. 312. See also Bronstein Fla.1926, 109 So. 312. See also Bronstein v. Roth, Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 272, in Fla.Stat.1955, F.S.A., providing for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent an incompetent defendant where such ......
-
Bronstein v. Bronstein
...of the rights of the parties under a deed. This case has been before this Court on two previous occasions. See 60 So.2d 296, and 64 So.2d 272. The factual background is outlined in our opinion in 64 So.2d 272. In addition to the facts there recited, the present record reveals that subsequen......