Brittain v. Seither

469 So. 2d 208, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1312, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14232
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 23, 1985
DocketNo. 83-1680
StatusPublished

This text of 469 So. 2d 208 (Brittain v. Seither) 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
Brittain v. Seither, 469 So. 2d 208, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1312, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14232 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

This case involves creditor’s rights and remedies; specifically, the right of a judgment creditor to have equitable execution on the judgment debtor’s equitable interest in property.

There is substantial competent evidence1 to support the trial court’s finding that the judgment debtor had the right under a written marital property settlement agreement to require an ex-wife to sell a residence legally titled in the ex-wife’s name and to divide the net sale proceeds equally between the ex-wife and the judgment debtor.

The trial court correctly construed the property settlement agreement to recognize, or to create, in the judgment debtor an equitable title as to a one-half interest in the residence.2

At the instance of a judgment creditor in a supplementary proceeding, in which the judgment debtor’s ex-wife was interpleaded and given due process opportunity to defend, the trial court had equity [209]*209jurisdiction, in the nature of a creditor’s bill in equity,3 to cause an equitable execution on the judgment debtor’s equitable interest in the residence by enforcing the judgment debtor’s rights under the property settlement agreement, ordering a sale of the residence and ordering the application of the judgment debtor’s share of the sale proceeds to be applied to payment of the judgment debt. See generally, Puzzo v. Ray, 386 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied 392 So.2d 1378 (Fla.1980); General Guaranty Insurance Company v. DaCosta, 190 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). See also Continental Cigar Corp. v. Edelman & Co., Inc., 397 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); 13 Fla.Jur.2d, Creditor’s Rights and Remedies §§ 280 et seq.

The judgment below is

AFFIRMED.

COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

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

Related

Puzzo v. Ray
386 So. 2d 49 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Cain & Bultman, Inc. v. Miss Sam, Inc.
409 So. 2d 114 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
General Guaranty Insurance Co. of Fla. v. DaCosta
190 So. 2d 211 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Tomayko v. Thomas
143 So. 2d 227 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Continental Cigar Corp. v. Edelman & Co., Inc.
397 So. 2d 957 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
George E. Sebring Co. v. O'Rourke
134 So. 556 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
469 So. 2d 208, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1312, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brittain-v-seither-fladistctapp-1985.