
    Genevieve E. BOWMAN, Appellant, v. Conrad YELVINGTON, etc., et al., Appellees.
    No. S-253.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Dec. 12, 1974.
    liehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1975.
    Dan R. Warren of Judge, Warren, Cass & Garlovsky, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
    Isham W. Adams, Daytona Beach, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

For a second time this family squabble by the children of decedent, Essie Sue Yelvington, makes its appearance in this Court. See In Re Estate of Yelvington, 280 So.2d 497 (Fla.App.1st 1973.)

The previous controversy involved the question of which of two wills was to be probated. One will executed by decedent in 1966 favored appellee Conrad Yelving-ton; another will executed in 1970 divided decedent’s property equally among her surviving children. In reversing, this Court directed the trial court to probate the latter will.

The instant suit for recission and cancellation filed by appellee Conrad Yelvington involves the “old homeplace” of decedent. The will that we directed to be admitted into probate was executed on August 13, 1970. On December 9, 1970, the same attorney who had prepared the will drafted a warranty deed conveying to appellant Genevieve Bowman the “old • homeplace”. The legal description included a portion of land that appellee Conrad Yelvington had utilized for many years in developing a successful trucking business and upon which he had made substantial improvements. The attorney that drafted the conveyance testified that the decedent desired to deed this property to Genevieve in order to provide a homeplace for her unmarried children. The attorney further testified that at the time he inserted the legal description, he was not sure whether there were buildings on the property other than the home.

The trial judge, after hearing the foregoing and other corroborating evidence, in reforming the subject deed, held: 1) that the front part of the property which contained the old homeplace had been deeded to Genevieve as trustee for the use and benefit of all of the children of Essie Sue Yelvington; and 2) as to the back part of the property which contained all of the improvements which had been constructed thereon by Conrad, the trial court imposed a lien of $33,850.00 in favor of appellee Conrad Yelvington, foreclosed same, and directed that it be sold at public sale.

The basic point on appeal is: Was the judgment of the trial court under the facts and the circumstances clearly erroneous? After fully reviewing this extensive record, it is our conclusion that the trial court reached a just and equitable judgment in accord with the jurisprudence of this state.

The judgment appealed is affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.

McCORD, J., specially concurs.

McCORD, Judge

(specially concurring).

The trial judge found from the testimony and evidence presented before him .that, “Mrs. Yelvington’s purpose in executing this deed was to preserve her residence as a home for such of her children as may from time to time wish to reside and live there. Such purpose through mistake, error or omission was not accomplished and said deed should be reformed and a lien impressed against the remaining property embraced in the description contained in said deed in favor of Conrad in an amount equal to the enhancement in value thereof occasioned by such improvements.” ' The evidence is sufficient to support the findings and judgment of the trial judge. An equitable showing has been made both for reformation of the deed and for the impressing of an equitable lien in favor of Conrad Yelvington on that part of the property which was improved by him with his mother’s consent and approval.  