Davis v. Michell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davis v. Michell

526 So. 2d 105, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 244, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 154, 1988 WL 2249

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1988

DocketNo. 85-2694

StatusPublished

This text of 526 So. 2d 105 (Davis v. Michell) 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

Davis v. Michell, 526 So. 2d 105, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 244, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 154, 1988 WL 2249 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

This suit to enforce payment of a debt arose in the aftermath of a dissolution action. Appellant defended in the suit brought by his former mother-in-law, by relying on the statute of frauds. By third-party complaint he sought indemnification from the former wife.

The marital home, purchased in part by the mother-in-law’s loan to the husband and wife, became the property of the wife by virtue of a property settlement agreement. In the dissolution action the wife had claimed a special equity in the marital property. The husband owned various parcels of real estate, title to which was not affected by the property settlement agreement.

Depending upon the relationship between the wife’s claim for a special equity and the ultimate disposition of the marital home by the property settlement agreement and disposition of the husband’s properties, the husband, now appellant, may have a valid claim for contribution against his former wife. That question is not before us, however. The claim for indemnification is without merit and the statute of frauds does not afford appellant a defense under the facts of this case. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

LETTS and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

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

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

This suit to enforce payment of a debt arose in the aftermath of a dissolution action. Appellant defended in the suit brought by his former mother-in-law, by relying on the statute of frauds. By third-party complaint he sought indemnification from the former wife.

The marital home, purchased in part by the mother-in-law’s loan to the husband and wife, became the property of the wife by virtue of a property settlement agreement. In the dissolution action the wife had claimed a special equity in the marital property. The husband owned various parcels of real estate, title to which was not affected by the property settlement agreement.

Depending upon the relationship between the wife’s claim for a special equity and the ultimate disposition of the marital home by the property settlement agreement and disposition of the husband’s properties, the husband, now appellant, may have a valid claim for contribution against his former wife. That question is not before us, however. The claim for indemnification is without merit and the statute of frauds does not afford appellant a defense under the facts of this case. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

LETTS and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 So. 2d 105, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 244, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 154, 1988 WL 2249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-michell-fladistctapp-1988.