Baum v. Corn

7 Citing cases

  1. Home Fed. Sav. L. Ass'n of Hollywood v. Emile

    216 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1968)

    Thus, it is well settled that, in the absence of authority conferred by a trust instrument or by statute, trustees have no power to mortgage trust property. Jordan v. Landis, 1937, 128 Fla. 604, 175 So. 241; Haimovitz v. Hawk, 1920, 80 Fla. 272, 85 So. 668; Voorhies v. Blood, 1937, 127 Fla. 337, 173 So. 705; Baum v. Corn, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 740. See also Bogert on Trusts and Trustees (2d Ed.) Sec. 751 et seq.

  2. Royal v. Parado

    462 So. 2d 849 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that because the appellee's action in seeking the equitable rescission of a deed was not instituted primarily to seek transfer of title to the property in dispute, the local action rule was not applicable

    The local action rule does not apply with its full rigidity in suits in equity. Baum v. Corn, 167 So.2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), quoting 56 Am.Jur. 24: [T]his is because the decree made will not of itself necessarily be binding on the lands, but will take effect only through the action which the parties to the suit are compelled to take.

  3. Carver v. United States

    412 F.2d 233 (Fed. Cir. 1969)   Cited 17 times

    The law in Florida is clear and unequivocal. Where a dry, passive trust of property has been created, the Florida Statute of Uses, Florida Statutes, § 689.09, has been held to nullify the trust and to vest both the legal and equitable title in the designated beneficiary or beneficiaries. Hamilton v. Flowers [ 134 Fla. 328], 183 So. 811 (Fla. 1938); Elvins v. Seestedt [ 141 Fla. 266], 193 So. 54 [126 A.L.R. 1001] (Fla. 1940); McGriff v. McGill, 62 So.2d 28 (Fla. 1952); Baum v. Corn, 167 So.2d 740 (2d D.C.A.Fla. 1964). The text of the Florida statute of uses is set forth in the opinion in Elvins v. Seestedt, 141 Fla. 266, 193 So. 54, at 58, 126 A.L.R. 1001 (1940).

  4. Spector v. Old Town Key West Development, Ltd.

    567 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that court has jurisdiction to regulate affairs of corporation with principal place of business in other circuit

    This contention was wisely abandoned at oral argument. See Jutagir v. Marlin, 453 So.2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Singer v. Tobin, 201 So.2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 209 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1968); Baum v. Corn, 167 So.2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). First, a liquidating trustee, like a more traditional receiver, provides only an ancillary remedy for the enforcement of the substantive claims asserted in the proceeding, see Lee v. Lee, 407 So.2d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); 44 Fla.Jur.2d Receivers § 2 (1984), and thus cannot by definition be said to constitute "the underlying major question in the case," under the test for determining whether an action is local or transitory. Goedmakers v. Goedmakers, 520 So.2d 575, 579 (Fla. 1988).

  5. Associated Mtg. Inv. v. Boynton Beach

    321 So. 2d 82 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

    PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Morgan v. Eaton, 1910, 59 Fla. 562, 52 So. 305, 306; McMullen v. McMullen, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 626; Baum v. Corn, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 740, 743; Singer v. Tobin, Fla. App. 1967, 201 So.2d 799, 801.

  6. COON v. ABNER

    246 So. 2d 143 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    We affirm the ruling that venue in Dade County, Florida, was improper. See Baum v. Corn, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 740; 56 Am.Jur. Venue § 21; and 13 Am.Jur.2d Cancellation of Instruments § 53. The order dismissing the cause for improper venue is

  7. Singer v. Tobin

    201 So. 2d 799 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 19 times

    A suit in equity may be maintained in any jurisdiction wherein the defendants can be found, even though the suit affects land not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Bailey v. Crum, 120 Fla. 36, 162 So. 356 (1935); Baum v. Corn, Fla. App. 1964, 167 So.2d 740; McMullen v. McMullen, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 626. The agreement provided that the parties to the suit would purchase and develop a shopping center and that they would have various interests therein.