DONIE WILLIAMS AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF T. F. WILLIAMS, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIAN A. MCADOW, IN HER OWN RIGHT AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF P. W. MCADOW, DECEASED, APPELLEE
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.
In this trust dispute, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a chancellor's dismissal of a complaint seeking to enforce an alleged oral trust created in 1914 over shares of stock placed with P. W. McAdow. The court held that the complainant failed to prove the trust by clear and convincing evidence, and the long delay in bringing suit nearly nine years after the alleged transaction, combined with the death of the alleged trustee before suit was filed, rendered the claim unreliable.
The court affirmed the chancellor's dismissal, holding that the complainant failed to sustain the burden of proving the alleged oral trust by clear and convincing evidence required in such cases. Additionally, courts of equity view with disfavor suits brought long after the relevant transactions occurred and after the death of key witnesses, particularly where the alleged trustee has died before suit was filed.
“The alleged trust which forms the basis of the suit is asserted by the complainant to have been created in 1914. The bill of complaint was filed about nine years later on January 15, 1923.”
Establishes the significant delay between the alleged creation of the trust and the filing of suit, a critical factor in the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1914, T. F. Williams allegedly placed shares of stock with P. W. McAdow as security for certain undertakings by M. V. Williams (T. F.'s brother). P…
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 Declaration Of Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
The intestate of the appellant (T. F. Williams) as complainant below, filed his bill against’ the defendant, Marian A. McAdow, in her own right and as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, P. W. McAdow. The object of the suit was to declare and enforce a trust with regard to certain shares of stock alleged to have been placed with P. W. McAdow, in his lifetime, as security for the performance of certain undertakings by one M. V. Williams, a brother of T. F. Williams. The same case has been once before considered by this Court on an appeal taken from an order overruling a demurrer to the bill of complaint, which order was affirmed without opinion. See McAdow vs. Williams, 92 Fla. 13, 109 Sou. Rep. 263, decided June 12, 1926. Upon remand of the ease to the court below, an answer was filed which denied in substance all the allegations of the bill and upon the issues made, voluminous testimony was taken before a special master. The Chancellor entered a final decree holding that the complainant has failed to make out her ease by the required proof and dismissed the bill on its merits. The appeal here is from that decree.
The alleged trust which forms the basis of the suit is asserted by the complainant to have been created in 1914. The bill of complaint was filed about nine years later on January 15, 1923. In the meantime the alleged trustee, P. W. McAdow died. This was in July, 1918, and about five years before the bringing of the suit with reference to the alleged non performance by McAdow of the undertaking on his part with reference to the shares of stock *646in controversy. If the version of the transaction as testified to by the complainant himself, T. P. Williams, is true, the suit could well have been brought and maintained in the lifetime of MeAdow, who was the party sought to be charged with the trust responsibility. The trust was attempted to be shown by parole testimony, which is required to be clear and convincing in a case of this kind, a burden which the Chancellor in his decree affirmatively held that the complainant did not sustain.
Even though the previous decision of this Court on the demurrer to the bill established the law of the ease to the effect that there was not such laches on the face of the complainant’s own pleading as to preclude relief, it is nevertheless true that Courts of equity view with disfavor suits brought long after the transactions in issue have occurred, and long after death has closed the lips of those familiar with the occurrences remote in point' of time, as they are here. See Citizens State Bank vs. Jones, 100 Fla. 1492, 131 Sou. Rep. 369. The Chancellor was not convinced of the justice of complainant’s claim and our review of the testimony and documentary evidence in the record impresses us that his conclusions cannot properly be disturbed by reversing his findings against the party who had the burden of proof, so the decree must be affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Buford, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Nat'l Bank of Tampa v. S. Lumber & Supply Co., 106 Fla. 821 (Fla. 1932)…a mortgage may be established by parol, as appellee contends (Bay Biscayne Co. vs. Baile, 73 Fla. 1120, 75 Sou. Rep. 860) parol testimony to establish such trust must be clear and convincing to the effect that such trust exists. Williams vs. McAdow, 103 Fla. 644, 137 Sou. Rep. 891. In this case, giving due consideration and weight to the findings of tbe Chancellor upon the evidence, the record fails to show that tbe alleged constructive trust in tbe bank’s mortgage claimed by tbe materialman, was proved by…
-
Bailey v. Theodora M. Baron, 269 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…and restated. See Columbia Bank for Cooperatives v. Okeelanta Sugar Cooperative, supra; Webster v. St. Petersburg Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 155 Fla. 412, 20 So. 2d 400 (1945); McCrory Stores Corporation v. Tunnicliffe, supra; Williams v. McAdow, 103 Fla. 644, 137 So. 891 (1931); Fraser v. Lewis, supra; Sottile v. Mershon, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 481. Two deficiencies in the evidence appear to bar the trial court’s holding that the court may execute the oral promise to create a trust in the pension and…
-
Wimmers v. Blackburn, 151 Fla. 236 (Fla. 1942)…brings us to defendant’s next claim that plaintiff is suing as trustee and her proof of the trust relationship is not clear and unequivocal as enunciated by this Court in Hill v. Beacham, et al., 79 Fla. 430, 85 So. 147; Williams as Admx. v. McAdow, 103 Fla. 644, 137 So. 891. While a strong showing is- required, to prove an oral trust, yet the application of the rule does not require as great amount of prdof where the. trustee is not seeking an adverse-decree to the cestui que trust. We have examined the o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Citizens State Bank v. Jones, 100 Fla. 1492 (Fla. 1930)
- McAbow v. Williams, 92 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1926)