ABE BAUM, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
ARDIS HEIMAN, 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.
Baum sued Heiman for defaulting on a $40,000 loan and obtained a judgment that was satisfied from proceeds of a condominium sale. Heiman later successfully challenged the sale through probate proceedings establishing the property as her husband's homestead, then sued Baum for restitution. The court reverses the restitution award, holding that Baum, as a non-party to the homestead proceedings, cannot be required to make restitution despite the reversal of the judgment under which he was paid.
Baum cannot be liable for restitution because he was not a party to the homestead proceedings. Although the general rule permits restitution when property is surrendered under an erroneous judgment, restitution is appropriate only against the party who prevailed under the erroneous judgment, not against third parties uninvolved in those proceedings.
[1] A party who surrenders property under an erroneous judgment is generally entitled to restitution of what was lost upon reversal of that judgment.
[2] Restitution for an erroneous judgment is appropriate against the party who prevailed under that judgment, not against third parties.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“one who surrenders property under an erroneous judgment is entitled to be restored to all that he has lost in the event of a reversal of the judgment”
States the general rule for restitution but establishes the principle that must be limited by the next rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaum lent Heiman and her husband $40,000 evidenced by a promissory note. After the husband's death, Heiman defaulted and Baum obtained a judgment that…
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 Homestead Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Abe Baum appeals a final judgment granting Ardis Heiman restitution. We reverse.
Baum lent Heiman and her husband $40,-000 which was evidenced by a promissory note. After her husband died, Heiman defaulted on the loan. Baum filed an action against her and obtained a judgment which he recorded, thereby obtaining a lien on a condominium held in her name. Another creditor, Capital Bank, also received a judgment against her which it recorded. Hei-man then filed a petition in probate court to have the condominium declared her husband’s homestead property in order to protect it from the many creditors who had been attracted by the probate of his estate. That court ruled that the property was not his homestead because record title was not in his name.
The condominium was sold and Baum’s and Capital Bank’s judgments were satisfied. Heiman appealed the probate court ruling but named only Capital Bank as a party. In Heiman v. Capital Bank, 438 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), motion denied, 447 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1984), this court reversed holding that Heiman was entitled to demonstrate that her husband retained a beneficial interest in the unit sufficient to have it designated homestead even though only her name appeared in the deed. On remand, the trial court concluded that the husband had retained a beneficial interest in the property; therefore, the condominium was entitled to homestead protection. Heiman later filed the action against Baum upon which this appeal is based, seeking restitution of the money paid him in satisfaction of his judgment.
The trial court concluded that Baum had been improperly allowed to have his judgment satisfied from the proceeds of the sale of the unit “under the mistaken belief that the apartment was not homestead.” Therefore, restitution was ordered. Baum now appeals.
The general rule is that one who surrenders property under an erroneous judgment is entitled to be restored to all that he has lost in the event of a reversal of the judgment. State ex rel. Hill v. Hearn, 99 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1957); Silverman v. Lichtman, 296 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Mann v. Thompson, 118 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).
However, such restitution is appropriate against the party who prevailed under the erroneous judgment or decree, not third parties, as is Baum. Simms v. City of Tampa, 52 Fla. 641, 42 So. 884, 885 (1906). As the supreme court held in Sundie v. Haren, 253 So. 2d 857, 859 (Fla.1971): “[T]he person required to make restitution [must have been] connected with the litigation. It is settled law that reversal of the decree on appeal does not affect the rights under that decree as to persons who were not parties to the appeal.” Therefore, Baum cannot be liable for the money he received in satisfaction of his judgment because he was not a party to any of the proceedings pertaining to Hei-man’s claim of homestead for the condominium.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order granting restitution to Heiman.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Douglas Martin, M.D. v. Lenahan, 658 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…e Lenahans. See also Pickard v. Maritime Holdings Corp., 161 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (attorney acting under employment, at direction of his client and in legal manner, is not hable for the consequences of his client’s actions); Baum v. Heiman, 528 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (restitution is appropriate against the party who prevails under the erroneous judgment not third parties); Sundie v. Haren, 253 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1971) (as to nonparties a purchase at an execution sale pursuant to a judgment afterw…
-
SKY Lake Gardens Rec., Inc. v. SKY Lake Gardens NO. 1, Inc., 602 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…r is reversed on appeal assumes that such order was imposed upon the appellant over its protest and certainly not, as here, at its request. See Marshall & Spencer Co. v. People’s Bank of Jacksonville, 88 Fla. 190, 101 So. 358 (1924); Baum v. Heiman, 528 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Lonergan v. Lippman, 406 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 418 So. 2d 1279 (Fla.1982); Mann v. Thompson, 118 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). We recognize that the developer sought the subject rescission as a fail-ba…1 / 2
-
Mace v. M&T Bank (M.D. Fla. 2021)…ingly, because Mr. Mace seeks damages in his negligence claim, M&T’s reliance on a then-valid judgment constitutes a complete defense. The remaining cases cited by the parties, as noted by M&T, are distinguishable. For example, in Baum v. Heiman, 528 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the court determined that a third party could not be liable for restitution following a reversed judgment but suggested that a party to the judgment could be. However, Baum relates to a claim for restitution, not damages, followi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sundie v. Haren, 253 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1971)
- Mann v. Thompson, 118 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Horace E. Hill v. Hearn, 99 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1957)
- Ardis F. Heiman v. Cap. Bank, 438 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Leonora T. Simms v. The City of Tampa, 52 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1906)
- Goodman v. Broxmeyer, 296 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Silverman v. Lichtman, 296 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)