Zanakis v. Zanakis, 92-3392
| Decision Date | 03 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-3392,92-3392 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2337 Juanita Lee ZANAKIS and Michael Zanakis, Appellants, v. Sophie ZANAKIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
E. Kent Mathews, Jensen Beach, for appellants.
Charles Sullivan and Canda Brown of Sullivan, Stone, Sullivan & Thacker, Vero Beach, for appellee.
The trial court imposed a resulting trust on appellants' real estate, and they appeal, arguing that the proof was insufficient to support this relief. We affirm.
During their marriage Sophie and Frank Zanakis purchased rental property, and when Frank died in 1979, Sophie became the sole owner. Sophie had two sons, Mike, in whom she had confidence, and Nick, who was irresponsible. In 1980, with the assistance of counsel, Sophie quitclaimed the property to herself and Mike as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. Sophie testified that the reason she did this was because Mike was older and more responsible, and that on Sophie's death Mike was to deed a one-half interest to Nick. She testified that Mike was to have no beneficial interest in the property until she died, and her testimony was supported by that of her counsel and her cousin. The evidence further showed that until 1991 Mike claimed no interest in the property, made no contributions for its upkeep, and received none of the profits.
Mike's testimony at trial was somewhat different from Sophie's in that he said the property had originally been purchased for the benefit of Nick and was to be conveyed to Nick if Nick overcame his addiction to drugs and alcohol. He believed he was holding the property for Nick's benefit.
Nick was killed in an automobile accident in 1989, leaving a widow, Juanita. Following Nick's death Mike left his wife to move in with Juanita. He eventually divorced his wife and married Juanita. Mike did not list this property as an asset in the dissolution proceedings.
When Sophie and Mike began to argue about the property, Mike quitclaimed his interest in it to Juanita, creating a tenancy in common between Sophie and Juanita. Juanita then filed this partition suit against Sophie, and Sophie counterclaimed, seeking the establishment of a resulting or constructive trust on the property.
The trial court denied Juanita's claim for partition and imposed a resulting trust on the property in favor of Sophie. Juanita and Mike appeal, arguing that a resulting trust cannot be based on these facts.
In Wadlington v. Edwards, 92 So.2d 629 (Fla.1957), the court stated:
As distinguished from an express trust, there are two types of so-called implied trusts. One is known as a "resulting trust". The other is known as a "constructive trust". Although some confusion exists as to the distinction between the two, it appears to us that our own decisions make the differences clear and dispose of the confusing elements. A resulting trust is simply a status that automatically arises by operation of law out of certain circumstances. A constructive trust is a remedy which equity applies in order to do justice. In the creation of a resulting trust it is essential that the parties actually intend to create the trust relationship but fail to execute documents or establish adequate evidence of the intent. The typical illustration is where one man furnishes the money to buy a parcel of land in the name of another with both parties intending at the time that the legal title is held by the named grantee for the benefit of the unnamed beneficiary.
By contrast, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Key v. Trattmann
...the statute of frauds, because "`resulting trusts involving real estate can be based on parol evidence'") (quoting Zanakis v. Zanakis, 629 So.2d 181, 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)). Although a statute provides that all declarations or creations of trusts of land shall be manifested and proved by ......
-
Kolski ex rel. Kolski v. Kolski
...(holding that statute of frauds inapplicable to quantum merit action which is common law variety of restitution); Zanakis v. Zanakis, 629 So.2d 181, 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (holding that constructive and resulting trusts can be based on parol evidence which is consistent with statute of fra......
-
Saporta v. Saporta, 3D99-2747.
...enrichment of one person at the expense of another...." Wadlington v. Edwards, 92 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1957); see Zanakis v. Zanakis, 629 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). [A] court of equity will raise a constructive trust and compel restoration where one, through actual fraud, abuse of confid......
-
Adams v. Estate of Henderson
...Adams “was not entitled to a resulting trust pursuant to the facts alleged in the Complaint,” citing to a quote from Zanakis v. Zanakis, 629 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). A hearing was held on Motion One.Prior to receiving a written order on Motion One,1 the Estate filed a second motion to......
-
Family law proceedings and grounds
...result of fraud, undue influence, abuse of confidence, or mistake in the transaction that originates the problem. [ Zanakis v. Zanakis, 629 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).] To impose a constructive trust, there must be: • A promise, express or implied. • A transfer of property in reliance o......
-
Business & commercial cases
...enrichment of one person at the expense of another....” Wadlington v. Edwards , 92 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1957); see Zanakis v. Zanakis , 629 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). [A] court of equity will raise a constructive trust and compel restoration where one, through actual fraud, abuse of conf......