Powell v. Metz
| Decision Date | 04 January 1952 |
| Citation | 55 So.2d 915 |
| Parties | POWELL v. METZ et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
F. E. Gotthardt, Miami, for appellant.
Victor B. Hutto, Miami, and Lawrence G. Ropes, Jr., Miami, for appellees Frederick E. Metz and Rose M. Metz, his wife.
S. N. Smith, Vero Beach, for appellee W. H. Powell.
Frederick E. Metz and his wife sued W. H. Powell and Estey M. Powell, one-time husband and wife, seeking a decree determining which one of the Powells was the proper person to receive payments on a purchase-money mortgage given by the Metzes to the Powells before the latter were divorced. Though the encumbered property was owned by Powell before his marriage to appellant, the mortgage was 'Executed * * * to W. H. Powell and Estey M. Powell, his wife * * * Mortgagees.'
The plaintiffs were in a quandary because each mortgagee was demanding all the deferred payments. As was inevitable, the suit developed into a dispute between the defendants, former spouses.
The chancellor concluded that the ownership of the mortgage had been declared in the decree divorcing the parties and that he was therefore bound to hold that all money falling due on the mortgage belonged to the erstwhile husband. The better to understand this ruling, we have examined the original file in the appeal from that decree, which was affirmed in this court. Powell v. Powell, Fla., 49 So.2d 341. In the wife's bill of complaint the mortgage in question was listed with properties alleged to have been 'accumulated through [the] joint efforts' of the parties, while in the husband's answer he expressly denied that the properties were acquired by their united endeavors.
The chancellor who entered the decree of divorce in another county specified that even though the wife had been at fault, entitling the husband to a divorce, she should, nevertheless, be provided with shelter for herself and children, periodic payments for their support, and transportation; so he ordered the husband to convey to her a house and lot and an automobile, and to pay her a stipulated amount monthly. He also directed that one-half of a designated bank deposit be delivered to the clerk to await the further order of the court. There was no mention of the mortgage with which we are presently concerned.
The appellant contends that in this situation Section 689.15 Florida Statutes, 1949, and F.S.A., applied; that is to say, the instrument constituted an estate by the entireties which metamorphosed into an estate in common immediately the divorce was rendered, giving each spouse the right to one-half the installment paid thereafter.
We think this was the effect of the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramsey v. Ramsey
...89 S.E.2d 598 (1955); In re Parry's Estate, supra; Simon v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., supra; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, supra; Powell v. Metz, 55 So.2d 915 (1952); In re Holmes' Estate, supra; Lutticke v. Lutticke, supra. See Stanridge v. Stanridge, 253 Ark. 1004, 490 S.W. 125; Simpson v. T......
-
Demorizi v. Demorizi, 3D02-2063.
...the husband and wife became tenants in common in the property, by operation of law, upon entry of the final judgment. Powell v. Metz, 55 So.2d 915 (Fla.1952); Cleary v. Hough, 567 So.2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990);. Pemelman v. Pemelman, 186 So.2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Wilkerson v. Wilk......
-
Silvian's Estate, In re
...upon Anderson v. Anderson, 153 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, 96 So.2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957); Powell v. Metz, 55 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1952); and Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727 (1941). See also Kollar v. Kollar, 155 Fla. 705, 21 So.2d 356 Leone v. Putnam, 46......
-
Tingle v. Hornsby, A-287
...89 Fla. 303, 103 So. 833.4 Winters v. Parks, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 649; Lauderdale v. Lauderdale, Fla.App. 1957, 96 So.2d 663; Powell v. Metz, Fla. 1952, 55 So.2d 915.5 26 Am.Jur. Husband and Wife, § 69.6 26 Am.Jur. Husband and Wife, § 76.7 Ohio Butterine Co. v. Hargrave, 79 Fla. 458, 84 So. 3......