PATRICIA PERROTT, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD A. FRANKIE, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that a father fraudulently transferred property to his daughter to avoid a judgment creditor but reversed the award of sale proceeds to the creditor, holding that the fraudulent conveyance did not sever the joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
The appellate court held that a fraudulent conveyance, even when voided, does not sever a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship, and thus the surviving joint tenant (the daughter) takes the entire property upon the death of the other joint tenant (the father).
[1] A debtor's transfer of a substantial portion of assets to a relative for little or no consideration after being sued or threatened with suit may support an inference of f…
[2] A conveyance adjudged fraudulent is deemed utterly void and of no effect.
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 intelligenceA father transferred property to his daughter, later creating a joint tenancy with right of survivorship. After a judgment was entered against the fat…
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 Severance Of Joint Tenancy cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant challenges the final summary judgment awarding the appellee one-half the proceeds from the sale of real property which was deeded to the appellant by her father, Edward Barnes. She argues that the trial court erred in finding that Barnes had fraudulently transferred the property to her in an attempt to put the property out of the reach of the appellee, a judgment creditor. We affirm the finding that the transfer was fraudulent but reverse the award to the appellee.
Barnes owned a two-story building in Pinellas County that consisted of five apartments and ten storage facilities. On December 29, 1982, Barnes conveyed the property by quitclaim deed to the appellant. In August 1983, the appellant transferred the property by quitclaim deed to Barnes and herself, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.
On December 15, 1984, the appellee filed a complaint against Barnes seeking damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident that occurred on November 5, 1984. On October 12, 1989, a judgment was entered against Barnes in the amount of $115,000. At the time of the accident, Barnes and the appellant owned the property as joint tenants with the right of surviv-orship. In 1987, while the litigation between the appellee and Barnes was pending, Barnes again transferred the property by quitclaim deed to the appellant. Barnes died on June 15, 1990. In December 1990, the appellee filed a motion for supplementary proceedings in execution of the final judgment, which claimed that Barnes had transferred the property to the appellant to defraud his creditors. The trial court granted the motion and ordered that the appellant be impleaded as a third party to the action. In August 1991, the appellee filed a certified copy of the final judgment in the Official Records of Pinellas County.
The parties stipulated that the appellant could sell the property and that $60,000 of the proceeds would be placed in escrow until a determination could be made as to the appellee’s claim to the proceeds. The appellant filed a motion for summary judgment in which she argued, inter alia, that even if the transfer was fraudulent and void, the appellee did not have a claim on the property because title would have reverted to its previous status as a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship; thus, she acquired the property upon her father’s death before the appellee made a claim against the property. The appellee also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to Barnes’ interest in the property and attorney’s fees.
The trial court entered an order granting the appellee’s motion for summary judgment, which stated that Barnes’ transfer of the property to the appellant was fraudu lent and that the fraudulent conveyance destroyed the unity of title and severed the joint tenancy with the right of survivor-ship. In essence, the order found that, once the transfer was voided, the property was held by Barnes and the appellant as tenants in common and, therefore, the appellee was entitled to the value of Barnes’ half of the property.
It is apparent that Barnes, in fear of having a judgment entered against him, transferred the property to the appellant during the pending litigation to protect the asset. Fraudulent intent may be inferred when a debtor transfers a substantial portion of his assets to a relative, for little or no consideration, after the debtor has been sued or threatened with suit. § 726.105, Fla.Stat. (1987).
Section 726.01, Florida Statutes (1987), states that a conveyance which has been adjudged to be fraudulent is deemed to be “utterly void” and “of none effect.” Thus, if the 1987 transfer was void, the property would revert to its previous status as a joint tenancy, and the appellant would have obtained the entire property upon Barnes’ death through her right of surviv-orship before the appellee obtained a lien on the property. See Hurlbert v. Shackleton, 560 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). A judgment does not become a lien on real estate until a certified copy of the judgment is recorded in the official records of the county. § 55.10, Fla.Stat. (1989). The appellee did not file a certified copy of the judgment in the Official Records of Pinel-las County until August 1991. Therefore, the trial court erred in awarding the appel-lee half of the proceeds from the sale of property which belonged solely to the appellant.
Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment for the appellee and remand for the entry of a final summary judgment for the appellant.
RYDER, Acting C.J., and SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amjad Munim, M.D., P.A. v. George Azar, M.D., 648 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…rol of the assets after the transfer; the transfer was of substantially all of the debtor’s assets; there was no consideration received for the assets; and the transfer occurred shortly after a substantial debt was incurred. In Perrott v-. Frankie, 605 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the second district held that fraudulent intent may be inferred when a debtor transfers a substantial portion of his assets to a relative, for little or no consideration, after the debtor has been sued or threatened with suit. Li…
-
Ocean Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Greenage Ass'ns, Inc., 643 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ellant and the judgment debtor were proved, there was evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that the transfer of assets from the judgment debtor to the appellant corporation met the tests for a fraudulent transfer. See Perrott v. Frankie, 605 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA1992). This case was tried under an order which determined that it was appellant’s burden to prove it was not liable, a ruling which was not challenged in this court because it was conceded by appellant at trial. We do not decide whether…
Authorities Cited
- Hurlbert v. Shackleton, 560 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)