Wall v. Altobello
| Decision Date | 12 December 1950 |
| Citation | 49 So.2d 532 |
| Parties | WALL et al. v. ALTOBELLO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Liddon & Parker and Frank Fee, all of Fort Pierce, and Redfearn & Ferrell, Miami, for appellants.
McCarty & Brown, Fort Pierce, Andrew F. O'Connell, West Palm Beach, D. C. Smith, Vero Beach, and Mabry, Reaves, Carlton, Anderson, Fields & Ward, Tampa, for appellee.
L. E. Mankin, a resident and citizen of Okeechobee, Florida, died intestate November 13, 1948. His sister, Mrs. Leta M. Wall, representing the heirs of the deceased, applied for and was on November 18, 1948 appointed administratrix of his estate. Thereafter on December 16, 1948, Ethel Martin Altobello filed her petition in the probate court alleging that she is the illegitimate daughter of L. E. Mankin, that she was born August 2, 1922 at McKendree, West Virginia, that her mother was Pearl Martin, and that during his life time L. E. Mankin acknowledged in writing, in the presence of a competent witness, that he was her father. The petition prayed that she be adjudicated to be the illegitimate daughter of L. E. Mankin and the sole heir to his estate. Appellants answered the petition, denying the material allegations thereof. On the issues thus made the probate court found that eppellee failed to prove that L. E. Mankin acknowledged that he was her father and denied the petition. On appeal to the Circuit Court the judgment of the probate court was reversed. We are confronted with an appeal from the order of the Circuit Court reversing the order of the probate court.
The point for determination is whether or not the proof presented was sufficient to show that L. E. Mankin acknowledged appellee to be his daughter in the manner required by Section 731.29, F.S.A., the pertinent part of which is as follows: 'Every illegitimate child is an heir of his mother, and also the person who, in writing, signed in the presence of a competent witness, acknowledges himself to be the father.'
The first item of evidence relied on by petitioner to establish such acknowledgment was a registration card from the Seville Hotel at Daytona Beach, Florida, with the entry--'L. E. Mankin and daughter, Lewisburg, West Virginia.' The clerk at the hotel, Mr. Richards, testified that Mr. Mankin came to the Seville Hotel after midnight, signed the registration card in his presence and in the presence of appellee, that L. E. Mankin and the lady referred to as 'daughter' occupied Room 210 in the hotel on the night of February 21, 1946, that Mr. Mankin filled out the registration card himself with the words 'L. E. Mankin and daughter, Lewisburg, West Virginia.' Mr. Richards also testified that the appellee is the lady who was present with Mr. Mankin and occupied the room in the hotel with him that night.
The appellee admitted that she occupied the room with Mr. Mankin but testified that she had traveled with him and her mother a great deal and that they always occupied the same room, using a double and a single bed. She stated that there was a double and a single bed in Room 210 in the Seville Hotel when she and L. E. Mankin occupied it and that she slept on the double bed and he slept on the single bed.
The second item of evidence relied on to support her claim was some income tax returns, exhibits 13-A to 13-F. With these tax returns were some letters all of which are attached to the record. Some of the tax returns and letters are of little or no probative value but some of them show that L. E. Mankin did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldwell's Estate, In re
...Inc. v. A.K.F., 234 So.2d 360 (Fla.1970) (child held as acknowledged after father died shortly after conception); Wall v. Altobello, 49 So.2d 532 (Fla.1950), (hotel registration card signed in presence of clerk held sufficient acknowledgment of paternity); In re Horne's Estate, 149 Fla. 710......
-
McCollum's Estate, In re
...in writing) as one of the prerequisites to establishing a claim of heirship to a putative father's estate. See also Wall v. Altobello, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 532. As shown in those cases, the claimant under the statute is required to prove three things: (1) the fact of paternity, and (2) the fa......
-
Glick's Estate, In re, 9842
...presented here before us, a very similar situation however was presented to the Supreme Court of Florida, in the case of Wall v. Altobello, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 532, where it appeared that one, L. E. Mankin, signed a registration card at a hotel with the entry 'L. E. Mankin and daughter'. The......
-
Barnett v. Barnett
...In the Supreme Court's opinion in McCollum, it referred to In Re Horne's Estate, 149 Fla. 710, 7 So.2d 13 (1942), and Wall v. Altobello, 49 So.2d 532 (Fla.1950), and 'As shown in those cases, the claimant under the statute is required to prove three things: (1) the fact of paternity, and (2......