Williams v. Bullington

4 Citing cases

  1. Arwood v. Sloan

    560 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 2 times
    In Arwood, "Plaintiff filed a claim against Decedent’s probate estate, claiming that the real property, funds in the bank, and other assets in Decedent’s name, were his sole property, and that title to the same had been placed in Decedent’s name for his convenience.

    Similarly, Plaintiff cannot show the necessary elements of a resulting trust. A very strong presumption exists in favor of the correctness of the recitations in the subject deed; an even stronger presumption exists in favor of a determination that the money and real estate in question were transferred to Decedent as gifts. See: Safford v. McCaskill, 157 Fla. 133, 25 So.2d 210 (Fla. 1946); see also: Williams v. Bullington, 159 Fla. 618, 32 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1947). I find that the subject transfers to Decedent were gifts, and thus, not subject to the imposition of any form of remedial trust.

  2. Polk v. Polk

    41 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1949)   Cited 2 times

    " (Italics supplied) See also Ritch Co. et al. v. Bellamy, Administrator, 14 Fla. 537, page 542; Ex parte Sirmans, 94 Fla. 832, 116 So. 282; Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753, 15 So.2d 842; Ullendorff v. Brown, 156 Fla. 655, 24 So.2d 37; Williams v. Bullington, 159 Fla. 618, 32 So.2d 273. Section 744.06, sub-section 1, F.S.A., provides: "The County judge shall have jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to guardians and wards and to the management and the administration of the property of wards, regardless of the origin or cause of the incompetency of the ward."

  3. Tyranski v. Piggins

    44 Mich. App. 570 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 26 times
    In Tyranski v. Piggins, supra, 205 N.W.2d at pages 596-597, the plaintiff cleaned the house, did the marketing, cooked the food, did the decedent's personal laundry, acted as his hostess, cared for him when he was sick, and contributed money towards the purchase of a house in which the unmarried plaintiff and the decedent resided.

    We are persuaded, as was the trial judge, that this is such a case. Williams v. Bullington, 32 So.2d 273, 275 (Fla, 1947); Warner v. Warner, 76 Idaho 399, 407; 283 P.2d 931, 935 (1955); Karoley v. Reid, 223 Ark. 737, 743; 269 S.W.2d 322, 326 (1954); Bridges v. Bridges, 125 Cal.App.2d 359, 363; 270 P.2d 69, 71 (1954). Cf. Sheneman v. Sheneman, 30 Mich. App. 1, 28 (1971); Stevenson v. Detroit, 42 Mich. App. 294, 299 (1972).

  4. Flowers v. Anderson

    198 N.E.2d 111 (Ill. App. Ct. 1964)   Cited 1 times

    The second is surely the only important difference and in cases where the meretricious partners each contributed to the accumulation of the disputed assets, courts have imposed a trust in proportion to the amount contributed and ordered a partition or a division of the assets. Williams v. Bullington, 159 Fla 618, 32 So.2d 273. Although there is no Illinois case exactly in point, the case of McDonald v. Carr, 150 Ill. 204, 37 N.E. 225 appears to support the position we here take.