Green v. Green

Decision Date10 June 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74--947,74--947
Citation314 So.2d 801
PartiesRuth GREEN, Appellant, v. Phoebe Diehl GREEN, as Executrix of the Estate of William Clinton Green, Deceased, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Creel & Glasgow, Miami, for appellant.

Brumer, Moss, Cohen & Rodgers, Richard M. Gale, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an order directing her to turn over the sum of $60,000 together with interest earned to the executrix of the estate of her deceased husband for deposit into the estate account.

Ruth Green, defendant in the trial court and appellant herein, is the widow of Clinton Green, an attorney.On March 20, 1973, two days prior to his demise, Clinton Green received a check for $60,490 payable to him for a legal fee and certain advances, drawn by a client on the Jefferson National Bank of Miami Beach, Florida.Thereupon, Clinton Green immediately prepared and delivered to the First National Bank of South Miami a letter, with the aforesaid check endorsed by him for collection.The letter instructed the bank upon collection to issue cashier's checks in the following amounts to the following persons:

"Ruth Green, Office Manager Account .. $   490.00
                "Clinton Green or Ruth Green .........  20,000.00
                "Clinton Green or Ruth Green .........  20,000.00
                "Clinton Green or Ruth Green .........  10,000.00
                "Clinton Green or Ruth Green .........   5,000.00
                "Clinton Green or Ruth Green .........   3,000.00
                "Clinton Green or Ruth Green .........   2,000.00
                                                       -----------
                                                       $60,490.00"
                

Thereafter, the First National Bank of South Miami, below Mr. Green's signature, acknowledged receipt of the check and the accompanying instruction.The check was processed for collection and paid on March 21, 1973.Clinton Green died suddenly on March 22, 1973.On the following day, Ruth Green, the appellant, accompanied by her attorney, went to the first National Bank of South Miami, received the six cashier's checks totaling $60,000 and payable to Clinton Green or Ruth Green, cashed the checks and placed the funds in various lock-boxes in the names of her sisters.Appellant also received the check for $490 payable to herself as office manager account and deposited same to the credit of the office account.The Estate of Clinton Green through its executrix, Phoebe Diehl Green, requested a return of these funds and upon appellant's refusal filed the instant action for return thereof.The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial at which plaintiff-appellee presented evidence to the effect that because of the tax problems the deceased was experiencing with the IRS, an office procedure had been developed whereby payments to the deceased by clients were directed to the First National Bank of South Miami for collection with instructions to thereafter issue cashier's checks in the sole name of Ruth Green who then would deposit the funds in her account and disburse them to the office account as needed.Two witnesses who were friends of Ruth and Clinton Green testified on behalf of the defense that Clinton Green on separate occasions had informed each of them that he expected to receive a $60,000 fee and that this money was for his wife, Ruth.At the conclusion of the trial, the judge determined...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • J.R. Brooks & Son, Inc. v. Quiroz
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 4, 1998
    ...of a gift. Reiner v. Reiner, 400 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Winner v. Winner, 370 So.2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Green v. Green, 314 So.2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 600 (Fla.1976); Sullivan v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 230 So.2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); compare Broa......
  • In re Felsner, Civ.No. 06-13992-DT.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • January 18, 2007
    ...donative intent, actual delivery and acceptance. Davidson v. Bugbee, 227 Mich.App. 264, 575 N.W.2d 574, 576 (1997); Green v. Green, 314 So.2d 801, 802 (Fla.Ct.App. 1975). Appellees do not debate that the $90,000 was delivered nor that it was accepted. Middleton's statement in the gift lette......
  • United States v. Viomar Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • March 21, 1985
    ...intent by the donor (2) effective transfer and delivery; and (3) actual and implied acceptance by the donee. Green v. Green, 314 So.2d 801, 802 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975). A claim that a gift has been made "must be sustained by clear and satisfactory evidence of every element." Lowry v. Florida......
  • Picallo v. Picallo, 82-1598
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 13, 1983
    ...of by the appellants. Williams v. Grogan, 100 So.2d 407 (Fla.1958); Sihler v. Sihler, 376 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Green v. Green, 314 So.2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Genter v. Genter, 270 So.2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); 3 Fla.Jur.2d, Appellate Review § On the cross-appeal we find error in......
  • Get Started for Free

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