Taylor v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 20 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1542,1542 |
| Citation | 119 So.2d 811 |
| Parties | Mattie TAYLOR, a widow, and Sam Taylor, a single man, Appellants, v. Viola TAYLOR, a widow, Samson Green, Benjamin Green, Rachel St. Clair, Joe Green and Beatrice Green, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dayton, Dayton & Luckie, Dade City, and David A. Davis, Bushnell, for appellants.
P. B. Howell, Bushnell, for appellees.
SMITH, FRANK A., Associate Judge.
This was a suit to partition approximately 92 acres of land, and this is the second appeal in the case. On the prior appeal, which was also taken by the plaintiffs, this court reversed the lower court. The effect of this court's opinion on that appeal was to hold that the appellants own an undivided three-fifths interest and that the defendants own an undivided two-fifths interest in the lands. The chancellor was directed to hold hearings for the purpose of
Pursuant to this court's mandate, the lower court took further testimony and entered his decree ordering that the appellees be reimbursed for the pro rata share of taxes chargeable to appellants but paid by appellees, and further charging the appellants with the pro rata share of rent which would have been due to appellees over the years since the appellants have been in possession of the land. Interest was also allowed on these amounts, the result being that the interest over the years amounted to more than the principal amounts. The circuit court also fixed attorneys' fees for plaintiffs' attorneys at $500.00 and prorated this according to ownership of the lands.
The plaintiff, Mattie Taylor, lived on the property since 1935; and her son, Sam Taylor, also resided there. It appears that about 19 to 25 acres around the old house were cleared and subject to cultivation, while the remaining lands are described as wild lands. It doesn't appear that there was objection to occupancy of the lands by the plaintiffs. The lower court found that the lands were worth $9,000.00. It was ordered that a reasonable rental was $200.00 per year and that plaintiffs should account to the defendants for two-fifths of that amount or $80.00 per year plus interest. This rental amount, computed over a period of twenty-four years, was decreed by the court to be $1,920.00 principal and $3,398.56 interest, or a total of $5,318.56. The court further found that defendants had paid $285.93 in taxes, of which amount the plaintiffs owed $171.57. Thus the total found to be due the defendants from the plaintiffs was $5,490.13. A lien was provided in favor of defendants against the interest of the plaintiffs.
Sometime during trial of the suit a survey was made of the property, incurring an expense of $350.00. The court declined to allow this item as a matter of costs and declined to prorate it against the interest of the parties.
Plaintiffs' Point No. 1 is that since the plaintiffs who owned an undivided 3/5 of the land, only occupied about 25% of the total lands involved in the suit and their tenancy (possession) was never objected to by the other co-tenants and plaintiffs never objected to occupancy of the lands involved by other co-tenants and since the lands have no rental value, plaintiffs should not have been charged with rental and interest thereon.
The record does not show that the property had any rental value but instead the only testimony on the point is definitely to the effect that the property had none. The only evidence at variance therewith was to the effect that for one year plaintiffs rented...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mims v. United States
...148 Conn. 349, 170 A.2d 891, 893 (1961); Clark v. Haggard, 141 Conn. 668, 669, 109 A.2d 358, 54 A.L.R.2d 655 (1954); Taylor v. Taylor, Fla.App., 119 So.2d 811, 813 (1960); Buckhanon v. State, 151 Ga. 827, 108 S.E. 209, 212 (1921); Childs v. Logan Motor Co., 103 Ga.App. 633, 120 S.E.2d 138, ......
-
Fischer v. Fischer, 85-967
...only for actual rent received from third parties. Saleeby v. Potter, 295 So.2d 130, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Taylor v. Taylor, 119 So.2d 811, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). Second, to the extent that the husband relies upon Bailes v. Bailes, 468 So.2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), for the proposition th......
-
Celtic Life Ins. Co. v. Fox, 88-02626
...care was involved. See Trolinger v. State, 300 So.2d 310, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. den., 310 So.2d 740 (1975); Taylor v. Taylor, 119 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). Nor do we conclude there was reversible error in the trial court's finding that the above-described work on Mrs. Fox's jaw ......
-
International Security Life Insurance Co. v. Spray
...in Little Rock, 244 Ark. 941, 428 S.W.2d 89 (1968); Zingheim v. Marshall, 249 Cal.App.2d 736, 57 Cal.Rptr. 809 (1967); Taylor v. Taylor, 119 So.2d 811 (Fla.App.1960). However, it has been decided in Texas that the award of any attorney fee is a fact issue which must be passed upon by the tr......