FUTURA REALTY, INC., GONZALO R. LAGE, SR., AND ARTHUR DRAPER, APPELLANTS,
v.
LAWRENCE WIGDOR AND WIGDOR REALTY, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court initially affirmed a summary judgment allowing partition, but on rehearing, vacated the judgment and remanded for a determination of property title, as partnership ownership would alter rights.
[1] A fee-title holder of an undivided interest in real property may bring a statutory action for partition regardless of motive, and any equitable defenses should be present…
[2] A party owning a fee-simple interest in real property is not required to voluntarily sell that interest, even if other title holders desire to sell.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted summary judgment for a partition action, recognizing a fee-title holder's right to partition regardless of motive. Appellants …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Partnership Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the trial court granting a summary judgment that recognized the right of a fee-title holder, of an undivided interest in a parcel of real property, to bring a statutory action for partition regardless of his motives and any equitable defenses to such action should be presented therein and not in an independent action. Condrey v. Condrey, 92 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1957); Williams v. Ricou, 143 Fla. 360, 196 So. 667 (1940); Lockwood v. Walker, 127 Fla. 20, 172 So. 359 (1937); Montgomery v. Carlton, 99 Fla. 152, 126 So. 135 (1930).
We also find no error in the trial judge recognizing by the entry of a summary judgment that a party who owns in fee-simple1 an interest in real property does not have to voluntarily sell his interest, therein notwithstanding the desire to sell of the other title holders. His motive for refusing to sell is immaterial. Compare: Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co.; 56 Cal.App.2d 645,133 P. 2d 73 (D.C. 3d Dist., Cal.1943); Bailey v. Vaughn, 375 So. 2d 1054 (S.Ct.Miss.1979); Croston v. Male, 56 W.Va. 205, 49 S.E. 136 (S.Ct.W.Va. 1904); 59 Am.Jur.2d, Partition § 118.
Therefore the final summary judgments here under review be and the same are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
OPINION ON REHEARING
By petition for rehearing the appellants contend that the property in question was in fact titled in a partnership and not owned individually.
We grant the rehearing and recede from so much of the opinion that affirms the summary judgment with the following instructions: we direct the trial court to determine how the property in question is titled. If it is in individual names then he should confirm the summary judgment. If the property in question is titled in a partnership, then he should vacate the summary judgment.
. Different rights and responsibilities might obtain if the parties owned the property in a partnership. Cf., Farrell v. Forest Investment Company, 73 Fla. 191, 74 So. 216 (1917); 12 Fla.Jur.2d, Cotenancy and Partition, § 130; 59 Am.Jur.2d, Partition § 186.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Siler v. ALL PRO Realty Serv., Inc., 491 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…lose was not necessarily within the power of the mother and daughters. Mrs. Lanier was under no duty to sell her interest and did not have to do so even if all the other interested parties were urging her to do so. See Future Realty, Inc. v. Wigdor, 421 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). While Coomes and All Pro might have sought damages against those who signed and were bound by the agreement because of their alleged interference or wrongdoing, they did not elect that remedy nor did they seek performance of the…
Authorities Cited
- Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1917)
- Condrey v. Condrey, 92 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1957)
- Hattie O. Montgomery v. Carlton, 99 Fla. 152 (Fla. 1930)
- Williams v. Ricou, 143 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1940)
- Lockwood v. Walker, 127 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1937)
- Levonia Hardin Bullard v. Walker, 127 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1937)