MAULDIN v. REEL

3 Citing cases

  1. King v. Estate of King

    554 So. 2d 600 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 5 times
    In King, the court addressed the issue of whether the trial court erred when it determined that two bank accounts were assets of the decedent's estate and did not pass by right of survivorship.

    Although, in my judgment, there is no ambiguity in the two joint bank accounts before us, I agree that parol evidence may be admitted for the limited purpose of establishing the existence or nonexistence of the agreements, as distinguished from allowing its admission for the purpose of varying the terms of the agreements. For example, such evidence may be received to show that the contract is a forgery, Mauldin v. Reel, 56 So.2d 918 (Fla. 1951), or to show that it was procured fraudulently or in violation of the law, Roper v. Florida Pub. Utils. Co., 131 Fla. 709, 179 So. 904 (1938). Section 658.56(2) seems to codify the above exception to the applicability of the parol evidence rule by permitting the statutory presumption to be overcome by proof of fraud, undue influence, or clear and convincing proof of a depositor's contrary intent.

  2. In re Estate of Sphaler

    190 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

    Affirmed. See Mauldin v. Reel, Fla. 1951, 56 So.2d 918. SMITH, C.J., WALDEN, J., and AQUILINO LOPEZ, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

  3. In re Krugle's Estate

    134 So. 2d 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 9 times

    This, standing alone, was not legally sufficient to overcome the testimony of the eyewitnesses. Mauldin v. Reel, Fla., 56 So.2d 918, In Re Peterman's Estate, 367 Pa. 302, 80 A.2d 792, Jones v. Jones, 406 Ill. 448, 94 N.E.2d 314. The rule laid down by these, and many other decisions, is succinctly stated in 154 A.L.R. 652 as follows: