JAMES E. MHOON, APPELLANT,
v.
GENEVA ANN SINGLETON, F/K/A GENEVA ANN MHOON, 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.
In this divorce-related appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of a former husband's complaint seeking indemnification or contribution from his ex-wife for a mortgage debt on property awarded to her in the dissolution. The court held that the unambiguous settlement agreement precluded any claim based on alleged oral understandings, and that no right of contribution existed between former joint obligors on marital debt.
The court held that appellant failed to state a cause of action for either indemnification or contribution. The unambiguous settlement agreement negated any alleged verbal understanding regarding indemnification, and former spouses who were joint obligors on marital debt have no right of contribution upon dissolution of the marriage.
[1] A conveyance of property subject to a mortgage does not, in and of itself, create a right of indemnification.
[2] An unambiguous settlement agreement negates allegations of a verbal understanding regarding indemnification, rendering parol evidence inadmissible.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Appellant's conveyance of the property subject to the mortgage did not in and of itself create any right of indemnification.”
Establishes that merely taking property subject to a mortgage does not automatically create indemnification rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant (husband) and appellee (wife) divorced, with the settlement agreement awarding appellee a parcel of property that was encumbered by a mortga…
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 Joint Obligors cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order by which a complaint for indemnification or contribution was dismissed. We find that the allegations of the complaint do not support a cause of action for either indemnification or contribution, and we therefore affirm the order appealed.
Appellant’s marriage to appellee was dissolved by a judgment which awarded appel-lee a parcel of property. The parties had previously held this property with a mortgage indebtedness as husband and wife, and the award was made pursuant to a stipulated property settlement agreement. Although the settlement agreement provid ed that appellee would receive the property subject to the mortgage, neither the agreement nor the dissolution decree contained any other provision addressing the parties’ debt obligation in connection with this property. The settlement agreement further provided that the parties had no other written or oral agreements or understandings.
Appellant subsequently filed a complaint seeking indemnification or contribution from appellee. The complaint alleged that appellee had not made mortgage payments for the property awarded in the dissolution, and that a foreclosure action had been instituted against appellant, resulting in a deficiency judgment to which appellee was not a party. It further alleged that appellant had satisfied the judgment by a negotiated settlement, for which appellant sought indemnification or contribution.
Appellant’s conveyance of the property subject to the mortgage did not in and of itself create any right of indemnification. Alabama-Florida Co. v. Mays, 111 Fla. 100, 149 So. 61 (1933). While appellant’s complaint alleges a “verbal understanding” as to indemnification, this allegation is negated by the express and unambiguous terms of the settlement agreement. Since the agreement is unambiguous, parol evidence would be inadmissible. Lemon v. Aspen Emerald Lakes Associates Ltd., 446 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The allegation of a verbal understanding being thus negated, it will not support a cause of action for indemnification. Cf., Affordable Homes Inc. v. Devil’s Run Ltd., 408 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Appellant’s claim for contribution is predicated upon an assertion that the parties were joint obligors on the mortgage debt. Insofar as the debt obligation was shared by the parties as husband and wife, Lopez v. Lopez, 90 So. 2d 456 (Fla.1956), establishes that there was no right of contribution. When the parties’ marriage was dissolved the property was conveyed to appellee by an instrument which did not reallocate the debt obligation. We conclude in accordance with Lopez that in these circumstances appellant has not alleged facts which would support a claim for contribution.
The order appealed is affirmed.
WIGGINTON and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tiedeman v. City OF Miami, 529 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…lsh, 81 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla.1955); Paul v. Blake, 376 So. 2d 256, 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and (b) it was plain on this record that the plaintiffs could not by amendment have possibly shown any standing to bring this lawsuit. See Mhoon v. Singleton, 503 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Winchester Corp. v. Miami Free Zone Corp., 443 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Dade County Police Benevolent Ass’n v. Metropolitan Dade County, 452 So. 2d 6, 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (on rehearing), rev. denied, 461 S…
-
McVEIGH v. Mirabito, 556 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…Department of Revenue, 245 So. 2d 221, 223 (Fla.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 832, 92 S.Ct. 74, 30 L.Ed.2d 62 (1971). A conveyance of property subject to the mortgage does not in and of itself create any right of indemnification. Mhoon v. Singleton, 503 So. 2d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The grantee of land which is subject to a mortgage assumes no personal liability for the obligation secured by the mortgage where he has not by express agreement undertaken the payment thereof. He is liable neither legally…
Authorities Cited
- Alabama-Florida Co. v. Mays, 111 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1933)
- Affordable Homes, Inc. v. Devil's RUN, 408 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Lopez v. Lopez, 90 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1956)
- Lemon v. Aspen Emerald Lakes Assocs., Ltd., 446 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)