BETTY P. BRITTAIN, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH C. SEITHER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A judgment creditor sought to satisfy a judgment debt by executing on the judgment debtor's equitable interest in a residence held in the ex-wife's name. The court held that a judgment creditor can pursue equitable execution on a judgment debtor's equitable interest in property, particularly where a marital property settlement agreement grants the debtor rights to compel sale and share in proceeds.
A judgment creditor has the right to pursue equitable execution on a judgment debtor's equitable interest in property. The trial court properly exercised equity jurisdiction to enforce the judgment debtor's rights under the property settlement agreement by ordering sale of the residence and applying the judgment debtor's share of proceeds to the judgment debt.
[1] A judgment creditor may pursue equitable execution on a judgment debtor's equitable interest in property.
[2] A marital property settlement agreement can create or recognize an equitable title in a party to property legally titled in another's name.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the right of a judgment creditor to have equitable execution on the judgment debtor's equitable interest in property”
Establishes the central issue and legal principle at stake in the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe judgment debtor had an equitable interest in a residence legally titled in the ex-wife's name, pursuant to a written marital property settlement a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equitable Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
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 jurisdiction, 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. . The property settlement agreement dated September 2, 1981, provided in part: "The parties agree that the wife shall immediately make arrangements to sell the residence described above. Upon such sale, and after payment of any and all obligations remaining on said residence, the parties shall divide the proceeds of the sale, fifty per cent (50%) to each.”
. See generally George E. Sebring Co. v. O'Rourke, 101 Fla. 885, 134 So. 556 (1931); Cain and Bultman, Inc. v. Miss Sam, Inc., 409 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
. See, e.g., Tomayko v. Thomas, 143 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- George E. Sebring Co. v. O'Rourke, 134 So. 556 (Fla. 1931)
- Tomayko v. Thomas, 143 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Cain & Bultman, Inc. v. Miss SAM, Inc., 409 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Gen. Guar. Ins. Co. of Fla. v. DaCOSTA, 190 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Puzzo v. RAY, 386 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Cont'l Cigar Corp. v. Edelman & Co., Inc., 397 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)