Thompson v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 19 February 1954 |
| Citation | 70 So.2d 555 |
| Parties | THOMPSON et al. v. THOMPSON et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
W. H. Wilson, Jr., and Joe E. Hodges, Lake City, for appellants.
J. B. Hodges, Lake City, for appellees.
On the 5th day of May, 1926, the appellant, Frank E. Thompson, Sr., executed a deed to his wife purporting to convey a piece of property on which was located a homestead. On January 21, 1951, Maude W. Thompson, wife of the appellant, died and left a purported will leaving a portion of the property involved in this suit to her son, Thomas Albert Thompson. The Probate Judge refused to probate the will until some determination in some judicial proceeding could be made concerning the status of the property and the effect of the aforementioned deed and will. A suit was filed in the Circuit Court alleging that the property was homestead property and that the deed and will were ineffectual to vest title in the property in the son Thomas Albert Thompson. This suit was dismissed by the Chancellor and this appeal is made from that order.
The bill of complaint was filed March 26, 1953. All of the parties were over thirty-three years of age at the time suit was filed. The deed mentioned had been recorded for more than twenty years prior to the institution of the suit. There is no claim of disability on the part of either of the parties or any allegations of fraud, forgery, concealment or other defect alleged to exist with reference to the deed. The deed was absolute on its face and purported to convey for valuable consideration an interest in the property and the said deed had never been challenged, disputed, questioned or attacked by anyone for more than twenty years, while the grantor and grantee were living. The record shows that all parties to the proceeding knew of the deed and even if they had no actual knowledge of the deed, they were charged with constructive knowledge thereof by reason of the same having been recorded.
Each child now attacking the deed had been sui juris for more than seven years prior to the institution of this suit and the deed had been on record for more than twenty years prior to the institution of the suit.
The appellant, Frank E. Thompson, Sr., alleges that the deed was executed on his part in an effort to defraud his creditors. The bill of complaint shows that he had become involved and had an idea that he could divert his creditors by making a deed to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. Fain, 31122
...of an alleged direct conflict with prior decisions of this Court in Barnott v. Proctor, 128 Fla. 63, 174 So. 404, and Thompson v. Thompson, Fla., 1954, 70 So.2d 555. At the outset, we deem it advisable to invite attention to an aspect of the decision under review which might escape a mere c......
-
Reed v. Fain
...suits, legal or equitable, and for support they have cited the cases of Barnott v. Proctor, 128 Fla. 63, 174 So. 404, and Thompson v. Thompson, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 555, both of which were equitable. After close study we must conclude that the intervening equities present in both of these cas......
-
Moyer v. Clark
...Fla.1953, 64 So.2d 154; because it was made a violation of homestead laws, Barnott v. Proctor, 128 Fla. 63, 174 So. 404; Thompson v. Thompson, Fla.1953, 70 So.2d 555; because the acknowledgment was taken by the grantee, Montgomery v. Carlton, 99 Fla. 152, 126 So. 135. It will be observed th......
-
Cahill v. Chesley
...Barnott case was cited as authority to dismiss a second amended complaint and, upon appeal, the dismissal was affirmed in Thompson v. Thompson, Fla., 70 So.2d 555. In the Reed case, Reed (in whom the title was originally), joined by his wife, in 1930 conveyed his homestead to their son, who......