HARL E. HEDRICK
v.
ANNA MAE DAVIS, ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a bill of complaint seeking to cancel a trust deed. The trust was established to secure monthly payments to the former wife in exchange for releasing alimony obligations, and the court found the complainant failed to prove entitlement to cancellation.
No, the complainant failed to meet the burden of showing he was entitled to the relief prayed for, and thus the dismissal of his bill of complaint was proper.
“It was the purpose of the original, the first amended and the second amended bills of complaint to procure a decree cancelling a trust deed which was executed by the complainant to a trustee to thereby insure the performance and agreement on his part to pay the defendant, his former wife, $50.00 per month as long as she should live and to procure from her in consideration thereof the release of a decree for permanent alimony which had theretofore been entered against him in a divorce suit.”
Describes the purpose of the lawsuit and the trust deed at issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant executed a trust deed to ensure monthly payments to his former wife, who in turn agreed to release a decree for permanent alimony. He …
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.
Appeal is from order dismissing a second amended bill of complaint. It was the purpose of the original, the first amended and the second amended bills of complaint to procure a decree cancelling a trust deed which was executed by the complainant to a trustee to thereby insure the performance and agreement on his part to pay the defendant, his former wife, $50.00 per month as long as she *278should live and to procure from her in consideration thereof the release of a decree for permanent alimony which had theretofore been entered against him in a divorce suit. ■
The record discloses that he deemed it needful to procure this release so that he might deal in real estate and other property without his conveyances being affected by the judgment against him contained in the decree for alimony.
There is nothing in this record which makes it expedient for us to go into further details or further discussion of the merits of the case. Decree was entered after answer was filed and testimony was taken before a master and considered by the court. There is very little conflict in the testimony. The purpose for which the trust deed was executed and' the duties of the trustee under the provisions of the deed were clear and unambiguous.
The complainant failed to meet the burden of showing that he was entitled to thq relief prayed. Therefore, the decree dismissing the second amended bill of complaint was without error and should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.