Wallace v. Luxmoore
| Citation | 156 Fla. 725,24 So.2d 302 |
| Parties | WALLACE et al. v. LUXMOORE et al. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1946 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Whitaker Brothers, of Tampa, for Henry M. Wallace, as executor-trustees.
J. J Lunsford and Alton T. Peacock, both of Tampa, for Olivet and Berea Colleges, petitioners.
Bussey Mann & Simmons, of Saint Petersburg, and J. Lewis Hall of Tallahassee, for respondents.
William H. Hill died testate in July 1929. In his will he provided (1) for the payment of annuities to a host of relatives and friends (2) the creation of a trust fund of $500,000 and for distribution of the income therefrom among his heirs at law (3) the creation of two charitable trusts, of not less than $250,000, out of the remainder of his estate for the promotion of education at Berea and Olivet Colloges.
The will was duly admitted to probate in Pinellas County, the executors qualified and administered their duties under the will until 1937 without having paid the annuities in full or having created the trusts as provided by (2) and (3) of the preceding paragraph. On account of differences between the executors and the beneficiaries the executors brought suit in the circuit court for the construction of the will and a determination of the rights and duties of the executors and the beneficiaries thereunder. The circuit court held that the trust fund of $500,000 created by the will was void and that the beneficiaries were limited to the income from bonds held by the estate. On appeal this court reversed the lower court holding the trust fund valid and the annuities payable in full regardless of any deficiency in the income earned by the bonds. Luxmoore v. Wallace, 145 Fla. 325, 199 So. 492.
This suit was brought August 16, 1945 by the beneficiaries against the executors. The bill of complaint recited the foregoing facts, demanded payment of interest on delayed annuities, creation of the trusts and in other respects, compliance with the decree of the circuit court. The second amended bill of complaint charged that the executors were selling portions of the real estate belonging to the trusts and that the beneficiaries were entitled to delay income therefrom as provided by Section 690.12, Florida Statutes 1941, J.S.A. It was further charged that the executors had in their possession bonds in the amount of $373,007.82, which they are retaining for the purpose of paying annuities and that they propose to divert a large portion of the real estate sales to that purpose. It was also shown that the administration of the estate is substantially completed and that the executors of the estate who are the administrators have no further duty as such except payment of the annuities, that the continuation of their policy hinders the attainment of the objects of the will, exposes the estate to unnecessary expense, defeats the creation of the trusts and in other respects frustrates the purpose of the will. The second amended bill prays judgment for annuities, that administration in the probate court be closed and the estate turned over to the trustees, to be administered as a trust by the circuit court. A motion to dismiss was overruled and that order is here for review by certiorari under Rule 34 of the rules of this court.
The controlling question for determination may be stated as follows: Under the facts detailed has a court of equity the power to assume jurisdiction of the estate, direct that administration under the probate court be closed and administer it as a trust fund or trust estate.
The executors contend that this question must be answered in the negative because they say the probate court is the only forum provided under the law with facilities to handle the complex problems arising in the administration of such an estate, and that the circuit court is without power to grant adequate relief.
We find no support for this contention. Section 11 of Article Five of the Constitution provides that the circuit courts shall have 'Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in equity * * * and supervision and appellate jurisdiction of matters arising before County Judges pertaining to their probate jurisdiction, or to the estates and interests of minors.' This court has repeatedly held that the circuit courts as courts of equity have jurisdiction in cases where as in this the probate court cannot administer such relief as will give complete and adequate justice. Opitz v. Morgan, 68 Fla. 469, 67 So. 67; Allen v. Allen, 111 Fla. 733, 150 So. 237; Cole v. Cole, 106 Fla. 226, 143 So. 235; Henderson v. Ewell, 111 Fla. 324, 149 So. 372.
In the case at bar the will brought in question provides for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bush v. Holmes
...upon the fact that the primary purpose for which our courts were created is to administer justice. In the case of Wallace v. Luxmoore, 156 Fla. 725, 24 So.2d 302, 304, we "Stare decisis and res adjudicata are perfectly sound doctrines, approved by this court, but they are governed by well-s......
-
Smith v. State
...We should utilize a rule of reason. Stare decisis should not be applied when doing so would defeat justice. Wallace v. Luxmoore, 156 Fla. 725, 729, 24 So.2d 302, 304 (1946). The application of a per se rule of reversal is an inappropriate tool with which to protect the discovery rights of d......
-
Joseph v. State, 81-591
...in effect, prior Florida law by adopting a strict liability in tort doctrine in products liability cases).2 See e.g., Wallace v. Luxmoore, 156 Fla. 725, 24 So.2d 302 (1946) (rule precluding a court of equity from assuming jurisdiction in a probate matter altered); Therrell v. Reilly, 111 Fl......
-
Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 33968
...decisions, are, howeve, consistent with our decisions respecting the doctrine of res judicata and stare decisis, see Wallace v. Luxmoore, 156 Fla. 725, 24 So.2d 302, and with what appears to be the trend in other courts to recognize that the administration of justice requires some flexibili......