Raulerson v. Metzger, 77-1257
| Decision Date | 08 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1257,77-1257 |
| Citation | 375 So.2d 576 |
| Parties | William A. RAULERSON, Charles E. Raulerson, and Lucille Bailey, Appellants, v. Theodore R. METZGER, Margaret Marie Dykstra, Herbert T. Metzger, Eleanor Raulerson Pennell and Neils Peter Metzger, Appellees. /NT 4-1. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William L. Eagan of Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P. A., Orlando, for appellants.
Lealand L. Lovering of Lovering, Pound & Lober, Rockledge, for appellees.
William A. Raulerson and others appeal entry of a final judgment in favor of Theodore R. Metzger and others in a case seeking rescission and cancellation of a conveyance of real property. We reverse in part, and affirm in part.
Immediately prior to her death, the decedent, Elizabeth M. Raulerson, while an invalid, allegedly conveyed title to certain real property to her son, William A. Raulerson. Suit was brought seeking rescission and cancellation of the conveyance on the grounds of undue influence, mental incapacity of the grantor and forgery. After trial, the judge sitting without a jury, found that the decedent lacked mental capacity to understand the nature of her act and that the signature on the conveying instrument was forged. The court entered final judgment voiding the conveyance. This appeal followed.
Initially, the appellants argue that the lower court erred in denying a request for a trial by jury.
An action for rescission and cancellation of a deed is one previously cognizable in equity and as such is triable before the court without a jury. See, e. g., Bryant v. Small, 271 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Davis v. McGahee, 257 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). The lower court committed no error in denying appellants' request for a jury trial.
As a second point, appellants argue that the judgment of the trial court is unsupported by substantial competent evidence.
It is axiomatic that an appellate court cannot place itself in the shoes of the trier of fact if there is competent and substantial evidence which accords with logic and reason before the trier to sustain the verdict. Glass v. Parrish, 51 So.2d 717 (Fla.1951); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Hicks, 184 So.2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Thus, if there exists any substantial competent evidence on the record, the findings of fact must stand and the judgment entered thereon must be affirmed.
Subjudice, the trial court found that Elizabeth M. Raulerson was, on the day she purportedly executed the challenged conveyance, mentally incompetent to understand the nature and consequences of her alleged act. Testimony of Mrs. Raulerson's treating physician offered through deposition at trial indicated that Mrs. Raulerson was unresponsive and difficult to communicate with, and that in view of her physical and mental condition, she was incapable of understanding the consequences of her actions. This testimony was corroborated by a treating nurse whose deposition indicated that Mrs. Raulerson was totally incapable of caring for herself, that she appeared disoriented and exhibited eccentric behavior patterns. Mrs. Raulerson's daughter, Eleanor Raulerson Pennell, testified that her mother, while under her care, suffered hallucinations and exhibited eccentric behavior. The trial court upon this testimony found that the decedent was mentally incompetent at the time of the purported execution of the challenged conveyance. Although substantial testimony was offered to establish Mrs. Raulerson's competency, including circumstantial evidence indicating that Mrs. Raulerson had been considered competent at times prior to the alleged execution of the document, it is clear that the chancellor's finding of incompetency is supported by substantial competent evidence and therefore must remain undisturbed.
Appellant next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's finding that the signature on the challenged conveyance was a forgery perpetrated or procured by the appellant, William A. Raulerson.
It is generally true that the testimony of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavacos v. Sarwar
...a jury and equitable claims decided by the court." See, e.g., Phillips v. Kaplus, 764 F.2d 807, 813 (11th Cir.1985); Raulerson v. Metzger, 375 So.2d 576, 577 (Fla.App.1979); Farwell v. Neal, 40 Mich.App. 351, 354, 198 N.W.2d 801, (1972); Sado v. Sado, 299 N.Y.S.2d 743, 745, 32 A.D.2d 546, 5......
-
381651 Alberta, Ltd. v. 279298 Alberta, Ltd., 94-1653
...Id. Florida courts have held that an action to set aside a conveyance of real property is cognizable in equity. Raulerson v. Metzger, 375 So.2d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Bryant v. Small, 271 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Conversely, an action seeking a money judgment is traditionally one at ......
-
P & O PORTS v. CONTINENTAL STEVEDORING
...evidence to support the conclusions of the trier of fact, and that the trial court's findings are presumed correct); Raulerson v. Metzger, 375 So.2d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)(if there exists any substantial competent evidence on the record, the findings of fact must stand and the judgment ent......
-
Atkins v. Keller
...competent evidence in the record to support the facts as found by the trier of fact, we are required to affirm. Raulerson v. Metzger, 375 So.2d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Palardy v. Igrec, 388 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Calvert Fire Insurance Company v. Tarr, 391 So.2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1......
-
The use of forensic document examiners in Florida will contests.
...See also In re Estate of Lunga, 271 So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 3d D.C.A.), cert. denied, 277 So.2d 786 (Fla. 1973), and Raulerson v. Metzger, 375 So.2d 576, 57879 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. [4] Mauldin, 56 So. 2d at 919-20. [5] Norton, 451 So. 2d at 1204. [6] Id. at 1205. [7] Lenahan, 511 So. 2d at 370. [8......