Macknet v. Rogers, 1480

Decision Date16 March 1960
Docket NumberNo. 1480,1480
Citation119 So.2d 72
PartiesEdna B. MACKNET, Appellant, v. Paul V. ROGERS, Jr., as Executor of the Estate of Paul V. Rogers, Deceased, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Vocelle & Vocelle, Vero Beach, for appellant.

Smith, Diamond & Heath, Vero Beach, for appellee.

OGILVIE, CLAUDE, Associate Judge.

The deceased Paul V. Rogers purchased a lot by contract dated August 25, 1956. The transaction was closed on October 16, 1956, at which time a total to date of $5,760 was paid in cash by said purchaser Paul V. Rogers, on the whole purchase price of $7,200, leaving a deferred balance of $1,440 to be paid in two equal instalments of $720 each. The deed of conveyance was made to defendant Edna B. Macknet, the legal secretary of said purchaser, Paul V. Rogers, at his request, and thereafter Rogers paid the first deferred instalment of $720. After his death, (December 8, 1957), the defendant Macknet paid the last $720 instalment on January 2, 1958, and received the deed of conveyance from the vendor who held same in escrow to be delivered upon the completion of the purchase price. Defendant Macknet paid only the last $720 on the purchase price; the deceased Paul V. Rogers paid $6,480 on the purchase price.

Plaintiff Paul V. Rogers, Jr., as Executor of Estate of Paul V. Rogers, filed suit in chancery seeking to impose a resulting trust on said lot in question, legal title to which is vested in defendant Edna B. Macknet. She claims legal and beneficial title alleging in her Answer that the deceased made a gift to her of the property during his lifetime.

The defendant Macknet worked for the deceased Paul V. Rogers for more than two years prior to and up until his sudden death, December 8, 1957, as his legal secretary. She was not a blood or marital relation. She testified that she received a meager salary as such legal secretary; that he proposed marriage to her (although at the time he was married and continued so until his death); that after the payment by him of the $5,760 on the purchase price, and after the escrow agreement (with executed deed of conveyance attached) was signed and copy delivered to Paul V. Rogers on October 16, 1956, he some nine days thereafter on October 25, 1956, in his law office in Leesburg, Virginia, orally told her in private that said lot belonged to her, and upon the final instalment of $720 being made the deed would be delivered to her by said vendor who held same in escrow.

The deceased Rogers did not sign any writing; he did not deliver his copy of the escrow agreement to her--it was found in his personal effects after his death. Neither was the deed of conveyance nor possession of the real estate delivered to defendant by the vendor until after the death of the purchaser Rogers.

Considerable testimony and proofs were adduced before the Court in behalf of both sides, including disinterested witnesses as well as plaintiff and defendant testifying; both of whom were interested personally in the result of the litigation. Quite a number of documents were introduced in evidence by the respective parties, including the original contract of purchase naming the plaintiff's testate as the purchaser;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Mathews v. Hines, 75-16-Civ-Oc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • January 26, 1978
    ...and objection under the statute against testimony about transactions or communications with the decedent. Macknet v. Rogers, 119 So.2d 72, 73-4 (2d D.C.A. Fla. 1960). The ultimate question raised by the plaintiff's motion to compel in this case is whether plaintiff is barred by the Dead Man......
  • Estate of Parson
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1982
    ...protection and objection under the statute against testimony about transactions or communications with the decedent. Macknet v. Rogers, 119 So.2d 72, 73-4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). Even if that interpretation has continued viability in view of revision of the statute, it does not innure to appell......
  • Bordacs v. Kimmel, 61-362
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 3, 1962
    ...the protection afforded by the statute is waived. Embrey v. Southern Gas and Electric Corp., Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 258; Macknett v. Rogers, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 72. Once a waiver of the provisions of § 90.05 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., is made in a pending cause, it is waived for all further proceed......
  • Howell v. Fiore, 7345
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 1968
    ...person whom equity deems to be the real owner. Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, Chapter 23, Resulting Trusts, Section 464; Macknet v. Rogers, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 72; Grapes v. Mitchell, Fla.1963, 159 So.2d In Wadlington v. Edwards, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 629, a resulting trust is defined as: 'A......

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