Alfred Leone v. David Putnam
Alfred LEONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David PUTNAM, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
We affirm the holding of the district court that it could not grant specific performance of a contract for the sale of corporate stock which was held by husband and wife in an estate by the entireties, when only the husband signed the contract to sell.
Under Florida law, when stock is held in the joint names of both spouses, even if purchased with the husband’s own funds, an estate by the entireties is created unless there is an expressed intention to the contrary. Lapp v. United States, 316 F.Supp. 386 (S.D.Fla.1970); Porterfield v. Porterfield, 181 So.2d 16 (Fla.App.1965). See Matthews v. McCain, 125 Fla. 840 , 170 So. 323 (1936).
Such an estate is not subject to alienation or specific performance without the joinder of both owners. Trimble v. Hart, 130 Fla. 396 , 177 So. 710 (1937); Naurison v. Naurison, 132 So.2d 623 (Fla.App.1961); Newman v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 119 Fla. 641 , 160 So. 745 (1935); 17 Fla.Jur. Husband and Wife § 27, at 87 (“And since an estate by the entireties is vested in husband *513 and wife as one person, neither spouse can sell, forfeit, or encumber any part of the estate without the consent of the other, nor can one spouse alone lease it or contract for its disposition.”).
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.