Menck v. Driscoll

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Menck v. Driscoll

531 So. 2d 1057, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2319, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4490, 1988 WL 103872

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 11, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2842

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 531 So. 2d 1057 (Menck v. Driscoll) 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

Menck v. Driscoll, 531 So. 2d 1057, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2319, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4490, 1988 WL 103872 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The parties to this dispute are a mother and her two daughters. At issue is the parents’ intent in creating a trust. Patricia Driscoll, the mother, claims that she is the owner of one-half of the real property held in trust by virtue of a judgment dissolving her marriage. The children contend that the real property was conveyed to the trust during the parents’ marriage for the benefit of the children during their minority. The ownership issue arose when Mrs. Dris-coll sought authority of the court to sell the real property. Both sides relied on affidavits to explain interlineations in the admittedly vague trust documents. This appeal is brought from a summary judgment entered for the mother.

We reverse on the authority of Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So.2d 63, 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), which holds that “when conflicting legal inferences, particularly concerning the intent of the parties, may be drawn from an ambiguous legal document, or as to the effect even of undisputed facts, the issue is not properly subject to summary adjudication, and may be resolved only after trial.” Because material issues of fact and law were created by the affidavits and the ambiguous legal document, summary disposition was inappropriate.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

The parties to this dispute are a mother and her two daughters. At issue is the parents’ intent in creating a trust. Patricia Driscoll, the mother, claims that she is the owner of one-half of the real property held in trust by virtue of a judgment dissolving her marriage. The children contend that the real property was conveyed to the trust during the parents’ marriage for the benefit of the children during their minority. The ownership issue arose when Mrs. Dris-coll sought authority of the court to sell the real property. Both sides relied on affidavits to explain interlineations in the admittedly vague trust documents. This appeal is brought from a summary judgment entered for the mother.

We reverse on the authority of Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So.2d 63, 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), which holds that “when conflicting legal inferences, particularly concerning the intent of the parties, may be drawn from an ambiguous legal document, or as to the effect even of undisputed facts, the issue is not properly subject to summary adjudication, and may be resolved only after trial.” Because material issues of fact and law were created by the affidavits and the ambiguous legal document, summary disposition was inappropriate.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

531 So. 2d 1057, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2319, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4490, 1988 WL 103872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menck-v-driscoll-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack