Ott v. Ott
Florida District Court of Appeal
418 So. 2d 460 (1982)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Richard Ott’s will made a specific devise of all Richard’s rights in a corporation, Casa del Tesoro, Inc., to his two children (defendants) from a prior marriage. Richard’s wife, Deborah Ott (plaintiff), was the residuary beneficiary under Richard’s will. After Richard executed his will, Richard sold the shares of stock in the corporation, and in return, he received a mortgage and promissory note. When Richard died, he still held the mortgage and note. Deborah sought a declaratory judgment as to the ownership of the mortgage and note. Deborah claimed that the specific devise to the children was no longer effective because of an ademption from the sale of the stock. The trial court found that Florida Statutes § 732.606(2)(a) applied, entitling the children to the mortgage and note. Deborah appealed. On appeal, Deborah argued that subsections (1) and (2) of § 732.606 were interdependent and that subsection (2) should be limited in the same way as subsection (1). The parties agreed that subsection (1) of § 732.606 applied only to specifically devised property sold by a guardian, as opposed to specifically devised property by all testators.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anstead, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
