Menendez v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 18 July 1932 |
| Citation | 106 Fla. 214,143 So. 223 |
| Parties | MENENDEZ et al. v. RODRIGUEZ. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Bill for partition by Rosa Rodriguez, a widow, against Inez Menendez and husband and others. From a decree of partition which quieted complainant's title to certain land defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; L L. Parks, Judge.
Sutton Tillman & Reeves and R. G. Tittsworth, all of Tampa, for appellants.
Caraballo Graham & Cosio, of Tampa, for appellee.
This appeal is from a decree of partition. The salient facts appear to be that Manuel Rodriguez on the 26th day of September, 1917, acquired a certain lot of land; on the 17th day of March, 1919, he deeded this property to Alfredo Pendas and on the same day Alfredo Pendas deeded it to Rosa Rodriguez, wife of Manuel Rodriguez; that she held the property under this deed until the 30th day of May, 1923, a little more than four years, when she deeded the property to one Manuel Valle, and on the same day Manuel Valle deeded the property to Manuel Rodriguez and his wife, Rosa Rodriguez. The conveyances referred to were joined in by the respective husbands and wives, as the case may be, of the grantors. The property conveyed by these deeds was lots 8 and 9 of block 54 of the revised map of Macfarlane's addition to West Tampa as per map thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, page 65, Records of Hillsborough County, Fla.
These lots were vacant and unimproved so far as the record shows until after the last conveyance above referred to was made. Shortly after the conveyance of the land from Valle and wife to Rodriguez and wife, which deed passed to the grantees an estate by the entireties, the grantees built a dwelling upon these lots and thereafter occupied the same as a home. While the same was occupied as a home by Rodriguez and his wife, Manuel Rodriguez died. He left surviving him children by a former marriage, who are the appellants in this case, and the widow, Rosa.
On the 9th day of May, 1930, Rosa Rodriguez, widow, filed a bill for partition in the circuit court of Hillsborough county seeking to partition certain other lands which were alleged to have been the property of Manuel Rodriguez at the time of his death. The bill alleged that the lands described in the bill of complaint descended by inheritance to the complainant, Rosa Rodriguez, and the defendants, Inez Menendez, America Alvarez, Concha Alonzo, and Mercedes Reyes, who were the daughters of Manuel Rodriguez, and that the respective husbands of said daughters were made parties to the suit because of their relationship as husbands, respectively, of the daughters above named.
The defendants answered, and in their answer alleged that the defendants were joint owners with the complainant of lots 8 and 9 of block 54 described in the conveyances hereto referred to; the contention being that all the conveyances from the first-mentioned conveyance by Manuel Rodriguez and wife, Rosa, down to and including the conveyance from Valle and wife to Manuel and Rosa Rodriguez, constituted a manipulation of the title to the homestead for the purpose of depriving the children of their interest therein, and were void and of no force and effect.
On final hearing the decree entered contained the following: 'It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the title of Rosa Rodriguez in and to Lots Eight (8) and Nine (9) of Block Fifty-four (54) of McFarlane's Addition to West Tampa be and the same is hereby quieted as against the claims of the defendants or either of them, and as against any person or persons claiming by through or under them or either of them.'
The appeal is from this decree. It is contended here that the conveyances above referred to were void and of no force and effect because of the homestead character of the property and because it was the purpose of such conveyances to deprive the daughters of Manuel Rodriguez of their interest in the homestead.
It is not necessary for us to go further than to say that there is no showing in the record that lots 8 and 9 of block 54 of Macfarlane's addition to West Tampa, the property described in the conveyances attacked, acquired any character or status of homestead until after the last conveyance was made, executed, and delivered. The deed from Manuel Rodriguez to Pendas was made and executed and the deed from Pendas to Rosa Rodriguez was made and executed more than four years prior to the date of the conveyance from Rosa Rodriguez and her husband, Manuel, to Valle and the deed from Valle and wife to Manuel and Rosa Rodriguez. It is not shown that there was any impediment whatever to hinder Manuel Rodriguez from making a valid conveyance of the property in 1919 when the conveyance was made to his wife, Rosa Rodriguez, and this valid title is shown by the record to have remained in her until the conveyances were made and executed in 1923 by which the property became vested in Manuel and Rosa Rodriguez, his wife, as an estate by the entireties. When Manuel died, his wife, Rosa, being the surviving owner of an estate by entireties, became vested with the entire feesimple title to the property. For the reasons above stated, the opinion and judgment in the case of Bess v. Anderson et al., reported in (Fla.) 136 So. 898, do not control this case.
If the deeds from Rosa and her husband, Manuel Rodriguez, to Manuel Valle and from Manuel Valle and wife to Manuel and Rosa Rodriguez were an unlawful manipulation of title to property which was then the contemplated home of Manuel and Rosa Rodriguez, it is a matter in which the children of Manuel Rodriguez have no interest, because Manuel Rodriguez had more than four years prior to that time and at a time when the record does not show that the parties contemplated establishing a home on the premises divested himself of, and conveyed to his wife, Rosa, the fee-simple title to the property.
The decree appealed from appears to be without error, and should therefore be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
The general common law of England is in force in this state except where it is inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the state of Florida; and all the laws and ordinances in force in the territory of Florida to July 22, 1822, are repealed. See Florida Territorial Acts of September 2, 1822, and November 6, 1829; section 5, art 15, Constitution of 1861; section 5, art. 15 Constitution of 1861; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates
... ... Fla. 552] As to homesteads in estates by the entireties, see ... Oates v. New York Life Ins. Co., 113 Fla. 678, 152 ... So. 671; Menendez v. Rodriguez, 106 Fla. 214, 143 ... WHITFIELD, ... Chief Justice ... This ... suit was brought by the assignee of the ... ...
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates
... ... 540, 166 ... In this ... case the husband and wife owned the property by the ... entireties. It was their homestead. Menendez v ... Rodriquez, 106 Fla. 214, 143 So. 223; Oates v. New ... York Life Ins. Co., 113 Fla. 678, 152 So. 671 ... The ... husband ... ...
-
Stanley v. Powers
... ... 38; ... Anderson v. Trueman, 100 Fla. 727, 130 So. 12, 14; ... Logan Moore Lumber Co. v. Legato, 100 Fla. 1451, 131 ... So. 381; Menendez v. Rodriguez, 106 Fla. 214, 143 ... So. 223; Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, ... 143 So. 792; Lindsley v. Phare, 115 Fla. 454, 155 ... ...
-
Cutler v. Cutler
...and it is in fact the [natural person's] home place. S. Walls, Inc., 810 So.2d at 570 (quoting Menendez v. Rodriguez, 106 Fla. 214, 221, 143 So. 223, 226 (1932) (Whitfield, J., concurring)). Based on the terms of the trust involved in this case, the remainder estate in Edith's residence tit......