Losey v. Losey

207 So. 2d 283, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5889
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 20, 1968
DocketNo. 67-267
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 207 So. 2d 283 (Losey v. Losey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Losey v. Losey, 207 So. 2d 283, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5889 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant, Bernice Losey, from a final decree rendered in a suit brought by the issue of her husband’s first marriage to quiet title to several parcels of real estate. Howard Losey and his first wife, Esther Losey, owned certain real property, conveyance having been to them as husband and wife without further clarification. Through various deeds and related partnership agreements, the Loseys conveyed a one-fourth interest in all of the property to each of their three children. When Esther Losey died, Howard Losey served as personal representative of the probate estate, which consisted entirely of Esther’s interest in the property. Esther Losey willed her estate to the children. Subsequently, Howard Losey remarried and granted to his second wife, appellant herein, an interest as tenants by the entirety in the one-fourth of the real estate not deeded to the children. The children then brought suit to quiet title. The lower court rejected defendant’s argument that Howard and Esther Losey had been tenants by the entirety, and that upon the death of the wife the entire interest in the property vested in the survivor, enabling him to then transfer that interest to her.

We agree with the chancellor and affirm. For the purposes of this appeal, it is unnecessary to decide whether Howard [284]*284and Esther Losey originally acquired the property as a tenancy by the entirety.1 We are of the opinion that even if such a tenancy by the entirety did exist, that tenancy was terminated and a tenancy in common with the children created by the deeds and partnership agreements.2 This being so, Esther Losey’s interest in the property passed to the children through her estate, not to her surviving spouse by operation of law. And since Howard Losey could convey to the appellant no better title than he had, it is clear that the appellees were entitled to the decree rendered below.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Newton v. Long
588 So. 2d 192 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1991)
Matter of Estate of Childress
588 So. 2d 192 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1991)
Losey v. Losey
222 So. 2d 791 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Losey v. Losey
221 So. 2d 417 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 So. 2d 283, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/losey-v-losey-fladistctapp-1968.