Adams v. Adams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adams v. Adams

567 So. 2d 8, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5877, 1990 WL 111931

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 8, 1990

DocketNo. 88-2432

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 567 So. 2d 8 (Adams v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Adams, 567 So. 2d 8, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5877, 1990 WL 111931 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution but qualify the court’s treatment of a lot appellant held as trustee. The trial court held that pursuant to section 689.07, Florida Statutes (1987), the appellant was the fee simple owner of the lot, and therefore it could be treated as marital property and granted to the wife as part of equitable distribution. The purpose of the statute was to prevent fraud on persons who might rely on the record title when dealing with the grantee. Arundel Debenture Corp. v. Leblond, 139 Fla. 668, 190 So. 765 (1939). The wife is not a third party dealing with the grantee and relying on the title. Her interest can only amount to whatever interest her husband acquired. Therefore, the final judgment awarding her the lot can only be construed as awarding her appellant’s interest in the lot, whatever that may be. Therefore, the court’s final judgment does not act as res judicata in proceedings between the wife and other beneficiaries who were not parties to this action. On the other hand, the wife is not precluded from contesting any trust arrangement, which apparently is what occurred in separate proceedings.

GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., and JACK MUSSELMAN, Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution but qualify the court’s treatment of a lot appellant held as trustee. The trial court held that pursuant to section 689.07, Florida Statutes (1987), the appellant was the fee simple owner of the lot, and therefore it could be treated as marital property and granted to the wife as part of equitable distribution. The purpose of the statute was to prevent fraud on persons who might rely on the record title when dealing with the grantee. Arundel Debenture Corp. v. Leblond, 139 Fla. 668, 190 So. 765 (1939). The wife is not a third party dealing with the grantee and relying on the title. Her interest can only amount to whatever interest her husband acquired. Therefore, the final judgment awarding her the lot can only be construed as awarding her appellant’s interest in the lot, whatever that may be. Therefore, the court’s final judgment does not act as res judicata in proceedings between the wife and other beneficiaries who were not parties to this action. On the other hand, the wife is not precluded from contesting any trust arrangement, which apparently is what occurred in separate proceedings.

GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., and JACK MUSSELMAN, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 So. 2d 8, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5877, 1990 WL 111931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-adams-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack