KARYN JENKINS DRISCOLL MENCK AND LAUREL JENKINS DRISCOLL FARMER, APPELLANTS,
v.
PATRICIA K. DRISCOLL, F/K/A PATRICIA K. JENKINS, 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.
Court reversed summary judgment for mother claiming ownership of trust property, holding that ambiguous trust documents and conflicting affidavits regarding parental intent created material factual disputes requiring trial rather than summary adjudication.
When conflicting legal inferences concerning the intent of parties may be drawn from ambiguous trust documents, summary judgment is inappropriate and the matter must proceed to trial.
[1] When an ambiguous trust document and conflicting affidavits regarding the parties' intent create material issues of fact and law, summary judgment is inappropriate and th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“when conflicting legal inferences, particularly concerning the intent of the parties, may be drawn from an ambiguous legal document, or as to the effect even of undisputed facts, the issue is not properly subject to summary adjudication, and may be resolved only after trial”
Court cited Kirsh v. Mannen to establish the standard for when summary judgment is inappropriate in cases involving ambiguous documents and conflicting inferences about party intent.
A mother and her two daughters disputed ownership of real property held in trust, with the mother claiming entitlement to one-half by virtue of a marr…
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 Conflicting Inferences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The parties to this dispute are a mother and her two daughters. At issue is the parents’ intent in creating a trust. Patricia Driscoll, the mother, claims that she is the owner of one-half of the real property held in trust by virtue of a judgment dissolving her marriage. The children contend that the real property was conveyed to the trust during the parents’ marriage for the benefit of the children during their minority. The ownership issue arose when Mrs. Dris-coll sought authority of the court to sell the real property. Both sides relied on affidavits to explain interlineations in the admittedly vague trust documents. This appeal is brought from a summary judgment entered for the mother.
We reverse on the authority of Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), which holds that “when conflicting legal inferences, particularly concerning the intent of the parties, may be drawn from an ambiguous legal document, or as to the effect even of undisputed facts, the issue is not properly subject to summary adjudication, and may be resolved only after trial.” Because material issues of fact and law were created by the affidavits and the ambiguous legal document, summary disposition was inappropriate.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hollinger v. Hollinger, 292 So. 3d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
-
John S. & James L. Knight Found. v. Urban Philanthropies, 248 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)