Alfred Leone v. David Putnam

Fifth Circuit

Alfred Leone v. David Putnam

466 F.2d 512, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7796

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 23, 1972

Docket72-1295

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 466 F.2d 512 (Alfred Leone v. David Putnam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alfred Leone v. David Putnam, 466 F.2d 512, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7796 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the holding of the district court that it could not grant specific performance of a contract for the sale of corporate stock which was held by husband and wife in an estate by the entireties, when only the husband signed the contract to sell.

Under Florida law, when stock is held in the joint names of both spouses, even if purchased with the husband’s own funds, an estate by the entireties is created unless there is an expressed intention to the contrary. Lapp v. United States, 316 F.Supp. 386 (S.D.Fla.1970); Porterfield v. Porterfield, 181 So.2d 16 (Fla.App.1965). See Matthews v. McCain, 125 Fla. 840, 170 So. 323 (1936).

Such an estate is not subject to alienation or specific performance without the joinder of both owners. Trimble v. Hart, 130 Fla. 396, 177 So. 710 (1937); Naurison v. Naurison, 132 So.2d 623 (Fla.App.1961); Newman v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 119 Fla. 641, 160 So. 745 (1935); 17 Fla.Jur. Husband and Wife § 27, at 87 (“And since an estate by the entireties is vested in husband *513 and wife as one person, neither spouse can sell, forfeit, or encumber any part of the estate without the consent of the other, nor can one spouse alone lease it or contract for its disposition.”).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the holding of the district court that it could not grant specific performance of a contract for the sale of corporate stock which was held by husband and wife in an estate by the entireties, when only the husband signed the contract to sell.

Under Florida law, when stock is held in the joint names of both spouses, even if purchased with the husband’s own funds, an estate by the entireties is created unless there is an expressed intention to the contrary. Lapp v. United States, 316 F.Supp. 386 (S.D.Fla.1970); Porterfield v. Porterfield, 181 So.2d 16 (Fla.App.1965). See Matthews v. McCain, 125 Fla. 840, 170 So. 323 (1936).

Such an estate is not subject to alienation or specific performance without the joinder of both owners. Trimble v. Hart, 130 Fla. 396, 177 So. 710 (1937); Naurison v. Naurison, 132 So.2d 623 (Fla.App.1961); Newman v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 119 Fla. 641, 160 So. 745 (1935); 17 Fla.Jur. Husband and Wife § 27, at 87 (“And since an estate by the entireties is vested in husband *513 and wife as one person, neither spouse can sell, forfeit, or encumber any part of the estate without the consent of the other, nor can one spouse alone lease it or contract for its disposition.”).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

466 F.2d 512, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfred-leone-v-david-putnam-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack