Traub v. Traub
| Decision Date | 04 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 17,17 |
| Citation | 102 So.2d 157 |
| Parties | Edward B. TRAUB, Sr., and Traub Enter-prises, Inc., Appellants, v. W. E. TRAUB and Ryland Traub, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for appellants.
Sumner & Sumner, Fort Pierce, for appellees
The appellants here were the defendants in the lower court, and the appellees were the plaintiffs below. The parties will be referred to as they stood in the lower court. The plaintiffs filed their suit seeking to have a trust impressed upon certain beach property in St. Lucie County, Florida, which stood in the name of defendant, Traub Enterprises, Inc. They further prayed the court to decree the interest of the parties in the property, and for an accounting. The defendants did not attack the sufficiency of the complaint, but filed their answer.
Upon hearing of the matter, the Chancellor decreed that the defendants held the property in question in trust for the plaintiffs, ordered that defendants render a complete accounting to plaintiffs, and decreed that each plaintiff holds a one-third interest in the property.
Briefly stated, the facts, as found by the Chancellor, are these: In 1935 one Charles G. Traub died intestate leaving his three sons as sole heirs to his estate. These sons are the plaintiffs and defendant, Edward B. Traub, Sr. Prior to his death, Charles G. Traub had conveyed the beach property in question to Charles G. Traub, Inc., a corporation of which he was president. The plaintiffs were also officers and directors of this corporation. The defendant, Edward B. Traub, held no interest in the corporation. In 1936 the corporation was dissolved for non-payment of capital stock tax, and the plaintiffs, as the surviving directors, became trustees of the dissolved corporation.
In 1938 the plaintiff, Ryland Traub, learned that the beach property, upon which taxes were delinquent, was redeemable under the Murphy Act, Laws 1937, c. 18296, F.S.A. §§ 192.35-192.38 and notes. At this time none of the brothers were residing in the State of Florida, nor in the same state. Ryland Traub communicated with the defendant, Edward B. Traub, concerning the property. They investigated the situation at Ft. Pierce, Florida, visited the plaintiff, W. E. Traub, in South Carolina, and discussed the matter of redemption. Both plaintiffs advised defendant, Edward B. Traub, that they were financially unable to furnish funds towards redemption of the lands. The defendant said he would try to pay the taxes, and that he would hold the property in trust.
On October 20, 1943, defendant Traub wrote plaintiff, Ryland Traub, enclosing a deed to be executed by both plaintiffs as directors and trustees of Charles G. Traub, Inc., a dissolved corporation, to one Marjory Martha Pounder, as trustee. In the letter it was stated,
Thereupon the plaintiffs executed the deed as directed. All three brothers were to share equally in the property. The property was subsequently transferred to a second trustee and then to a corporation, now the defendant, Traub Enterprises, Inc., which is a corporation wholly owned by the family of the defendant, Edward B. Traub, Sr. The plaintiffs later made attempts to ascertain the amount of expenditures made by defendant, Edward B. Traub, and made offers of reimbursement but were told that the matter would be straightened out and handled later. The value of the property increased greatly between 1943 and the time of the filing of this action.
Although some conflicts appear in the evidence, the Chancellor's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly shown to be erroneous. This rule has been enunciated too many times to require citation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Abrass
...349 So.2d 698, 699 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct. App.1977); Hallam v. Gladman, 132 So.2d 198, 204 (Fla.2d Dist.Ct.App.1961); Traub v. Traub, 102 So.2d 157, 158 (Fla.2d Dist.Ct. App.1958) (all applying, if not expressly adopting, the majority rule); but see Palmland Villas I Condominium Assoc. v. Taylo......
-
General Coffee Corp., In re
...or other questionable means gains property which in equity or good conscience he should not be permitted to retain"); Traub v. Traub, 102 So.2d 157, 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (defendant held real property in constructive trust for his brothers from the time they executed the misleading deed to......
-
In re Royal West Properties, Inc.
...See e.g., Malkus v. Gaines, 434 So.2d 957 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Johnson v. Johnson, 349 So.2d 698 (Fla.4th DCA 1977); Traub v. Traub, 102 So.2d 157 (Fla.2d DCA 1958). The facts in this case do not support imposition of a constructive trust. As discussed earlier, the Debtor had the authority to......
-
Desue v. 20/20 Eye Care Network, Inc.
...by one party and a trust accepted by the other.'” Hutson v. Brooks, 646 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (quoting Traub v. Traub, 102 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (citations omitted)). Confidential relationships most often arise in close professional relationships-“those involving phy......