Sewell v. Sewell Properties, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1947 |
| Parties | SEWELL v. SEWELL PROPERTIES, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; George E. Holt judge.
Knight Underwood & Cullen, of Miami, for appellant.
Hoffman & Durant, Carl T. Hoffman, N. J. Durant and George C McCaughan, all of Miami, for appellees.
The appeal brings for review final decree dismissing amended bill of complaint. The allegations of the bill of complaint are sufficient to show that one Herbert Sewell, father of the plaintiff Dora Sewell, died on April 10, 1910, leaving a last will and testatment which provided:
'It is my will that all my just debts be paid out of my estate; I give bequeath and devise to my brother, E. G. Sewell of Miami Florida, all of the real and personal property, of which I may die seized and possessed, of whatever kind and description and wherever same may be situated, in trust, however, for the use and benefit of my children Dora Sewell and George L. Sewell to be kept and used for their support and maintenance, and distributed among them, when they shall attain their majority, share and share alike * * * it is also my will, and I hereby appoint my said brother E. G. Sewell the Executor of this my last will and testament, to qualify without bond or security, and with full power to sell and dispose of any property, real, person [al] or mixed, of my said estate, at either public or private sale, without order of any court.'
and at the time of his death Herbert Sewell owned considerable property which is described in the bill of complaint. That after the death of Herbert Sewell, E. G. Sewell qualified as Executor of the estate of Herbert Sewell but that he never filed any appraisal, report or other matters in the probate court where the will was probated; that he took into his control and possession all of the property of the estate of Herbert Sewell and thereafter handled and treated the same as if it were his own property; that at the time of the death of her father Dora Sewell was a girl 17 years of age; that she had implicit confidence in her uncle, E. G. Sewell, and that E. G. Sewell represented to her that her father left no estate and that such sums of money as he delivered to Dora Sewell he represented and pretended to be gifts and donations from himself. That E. G. Sewell two days before his death, which occurred on April 2, 1940, deeded to Dora Sewell a parcel of land in Palm Beach County alleged to have been would not more than $3,000 and represented to Dora Sewell that he was deeding her this property as a gratuity and as a fulfillment of a mere moral obligation as her Uncle to care for her and to assist her.
It is further alleged in effect that George L. Sewell, son of Herbert Sewell, died intestate and without issue several years prior to the death of E. G. Sewell and that Dora Sewell thereupon became the sole heir and sole beneficiary of the estate of Herbert Sewell.
It is further alleged that just a few days before the death of E. G. Sewell he conveyed and gave to his then wife Adele M. Sewell all of the property and proceeds of the property which he held in trust from the estate of Herbert Sewell and that thereupon Adele M. Sewell became the successor-trustee of the estate and property of Herbert Sewell, holding the same for the benefit of Dora Sewell; that Adele M. Sewell, the widow of E G. Sewell, died intestate on November 24, 1941 at which time she held the property and proceeds of the property of the estate of Herbert Sewell in trust for Dora Sewell. That shortly after the death of Adele M. Sewell plaintiff Dora Sewell discovered for the first time the facts and conditions of the estate of her father and of her rights and interests therein and thereupon on July 18, 1942 Dora Sewell filed her claim in the probate court against the estate of Adele M. Sewell; that the corpus of the estate which E. G. Sewell held in trust under the will of Herbert Sewell, a few days before his death he fraudulently conveyed and transferred in contemplation of his death, to his wife Adele M. Sewell in order to prevent the said trust from being administered as a part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Hanger, 78-217
...named beneficiary, Ms. Hanger, who was not a purchaser for value, but rather for the entireties estate. E. g., Sewell v. Sewell Properties, Inc., 159 Fla. 570, 30 So.2d 361 (1947). Finally, when Dr. Brown died, Mrs. Brown became the owner of the entire estate, in this case, the beneficial i......
-
Nayee v. Nayee
...or actual knowledge of adverse possession by the trustee. See Dacus v. Blackwell, 90 So.2d 324 (Fla.1956); Sewell v. Sewell Properties, 159 Fla. 570, 30 So.2d 361 (Fla.1947); Smith v. Reddish, 113 Fla. 20, 151 So. 273 (1933); Fisher v. Guidy, 106 Fla. 94, 142 So. 818 (1932); Rackley v. Math......
-
Herman v. Edington
...676, 63 N.E.2d 566; Browder v. Da Costa, 91 Fla. 1, 109 So. 448; Walker v. Landress, 111 Fla. 356, 149 So. 545; Sewell v. Sewell Properties, Inc., 159 Fla. 570, 30 So.2d 361. Stuart had no greater rights in the lots than did his father at the time of his death. He succeeded to whatever righ......
-
Scott v. Reyes
...recover property of the trust estate "because the trust property was not an asset of the decedent's estate." Sewell v. Sewell Props., Inc., 159 Fla. 570, 30 So.2d 361, 363 (1947). In a case decided after the adoption of the Code, the Third District applied the trust exception to authorize t......