Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: John S. and James L. Knight Foundation v. Urban Philanthropies (fladistctapp, 2018-05-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John S. and James L. Knight Foundation v. Urban Philanthropies
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
See Mariani v. Mariani, 125 So. 3d 222, 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (stating that “when the trust instrument is ambiguous, the intent of the settlor may be ascertained from extrinsic evidence”); Menck v. Driscoll, 531 So. 2d 1057, 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“[W]hen conflicting legal inferences, particularly concerning the intent of the parties, may be drawn from an ambiguous 4 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.”) (quoting Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 3d DCA …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Menck v. Driscoll
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
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.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nichols v. Tarsches
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
This court should, as it has in the past, “apply the doctrine 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,” Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So.2d 63, 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
cited Cited "see" T-JETT ENTER. INC. v. Ernest & Stewart, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Gentile v. Abadessa, 267 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Izadi v. MacHado (Gus) Ford, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Sosa v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 435 So.2d 821 (Fla. 1983) with T-Jett Enters., Inc. v. Ernest & Stewart, Inc., 543 So.2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). [6] It goes almost without saying that the plaintiff's ability eventually to recover on the theories suggested in this opinion depends on the showing that he was, in fact, led or misled into a genuine — even if unjustified — belief that such an offer had indeed been made.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." V & R, Inc. v. Wolff
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Cove Club Investors, Ltd. v. Sandalfoot Associates, 425 So.2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for rev. denied, 436 So.2d 100 (Fla.1983); see also Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Eaton v. Madsen, 388 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Sarasota County v. Stanton Investment Co. of Missouri, 283 So.2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Morris KIRSH, As Trustee Individually and On Behalf of the Claimants and Judgment Creditors, Appellant,
v.
Harriet V. MANNEN, Estate of Oscar J. Mannen, Harold Richman, Dorothy Hirschorn, Edwin Borgos, Marcus Fried, Robert H. Paquette, Richard M. Mannen, Appellees.
80-977.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb 3, 1981.
393 So. 2d 63
Schwartz, Baskin and Daniel S. Pearson.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

[*64] Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik and Paul A. Louis, Charles J. Kane, Miami, for appellant.

Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and George B. Foss, Jr., Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel & Wolff and Kendall B. Coffey, Miami, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Harold G. Melville, Miami, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The trial judge entered summary judgment to the effect that certain interests in real property titled in the name of Oscar J. Mannen, as trustee, were, contrary to Section 689.07, Florida Statutes (1979)[1] not owned by Mr. Mannen at the time of his death and were therefore not assets of his estate, subject to the claims of his creditors. This was so, the court held, because (a) Mannen held the title in trust for various investors who held beneficial ownership, rather than, as the appellant-creditor claimed, merely security interests in the realty; and (b) 62.35% of that beneficial interest had been owned by Mannen and his wife, by the entireties, rather than by Mannen individually. We reverse the summary judgment below because the appellees did not, as to either ground, conclusively establish as a matter of law their entitlement to the relief granted. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1966). In so ruling, we apply the doctrine 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. Carroll v. Moxley, 241 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1970); Macina v. Magurno, 100 So.2d 369 (Fla. 1958); MacKenzie v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 369 So.2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1979); Bankers Ins. Service Corp. v. Southeastern Home Mortgage Co., 363 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Lauer v. Wilson, 355 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); B & J Van Beber Equipment Rental, Inc. v. Pedersen, 348 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mathews Corp. v. Tutten Enterprises, Inc., 343 So.2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Sullivan v. Bloom, 342 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Stone v. Lingerfeldt, 330 So.2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Carter v. Dade County, 213 So.2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 219 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1968); Mead v. Mead, 193 So.2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1967); Benson v. Atwood, 177 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Owens v. MacKenzie, 103 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958).

Reversed.

1 689.07: `Trustee' or `as trustee' added to name of grantee, transferee, assignee or mortgagee transfers interest or creates lien as if additional word or words not used. —

(1) Every deed or conveyance of real estate heretofore or hereafter made or executed, in which the words `trustee' or `as trustee' are added to the name of the grantee, and in which no beneficiaries are named nor the nature and purposes of the trust, if any, are set forth, shall grant and is hereby declared to have granted a fee simple estate with full power and authority in and to the grantee in such deed to sell, convey and grant and encumber both the legal and beneficial interest in the real estate conveyed, unless a contrary intention shall appear in the deed or conveyance...