Marshall v. Hollywood, Inc.
Florida Supreme Court
236 So.2d 114 (1970)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Mathew Marshall and a partner owned as sole shareholders a large tract of land in Florida and formed a holding company in 1913 to hold the land. Marshall died in 1923, and his widow left the state, unaware of Marshall’s interest in the company. After Mrs. Marshall left Florida, Frank Terry engaged in a complex, fraudulent scheme to acquire ownership of the land. Through a series of forgeries and illegal actions, Terry disbanded the company and acquired deeds that placed ownership of the land under his control. Beginning in 1924, the land was conveyed through realty companies to other companies and to private individuals through private sales and forced sheriff’s sales. Mrs. Marshall died in 1945 without ever learning of her husband’s estate’s property interest. In 1966, Marshall’s brother (plaintiff), as executor of Marshall’s estate, discovered the interest. Approximately two-thirds of the land was by that point held by Hollywood, Inc., and the rest was held by other owners (defendants). Marshall’s brother brought a claim against the many current owners of the land, seeking to assert legal title to the land originally owned by Marshall and reclaim ownership back to his estate. The complaint was dismissed by final judgment with prejudice as barred by the state’s marketable-title act. Lower courts affirmed the dismissal, and through a series of appeals the matter eventually came before the Florida Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carlton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.