SAM MOTZKIN, APPELLANT,
v.
SHEARSON LEHMAN BROTHERS, INC. AND CAROL ADLER, APPELLEES
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.
Shearson Lehman Brothers filed an interpleader action to resolve conflicting claims by Carol Adler and her father Samuel Motzkin regarding proceeds from a treasury bond. The trial court dismissed the interpleader action, but the appellate court reversed, holding that interpleader was the appropriate remedy where Shearson faced conflicting claims to the same asset.
Shearson may maintain an interpleader action because it faced conflicting claims to the same asset in its custody and risked exposure to double liability. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.240, interpleader is available where a plaintiff faces conflicting claims that may result in double or multiple liability, even if the claims are adverse and independent of one another.
[1] An interpleader action is authorized when a plaintiff faces conflicting claims to the same asset, risking double liability.
[2] Conflicting claims to an asset held by a stakeholder may be resolved in a single interpleader action, even if the claims do not have a common origin or are not identical.
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“Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.240 an interpleader may be brought where a plaintiff is faced with conflicting claims that may result in double or multiple liability.”
Establishes the legal standard for permitting interpleader actions under Florida procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA treasury bond was initially in the name of Samuel Motzkin and his deceased wife. Motzkin alleged his daughter Carol Adler obtained his endorsement t…
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 Double Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We reverse a trial court order dismissing an interpleader action filed by Shearson. Conflicting claims were made against Shearson by Carol Adler and her 87-year-old father, Samuel Motzkin, involving the proceeds of a treasury bond.
The bond was initially in the name of Motzkin and his deceased wife. Motzkin asserts that his daughter had him endorse the bond at the Shearson office using deceit and undue influence and that she subsequently, without his knowledge or consent, had Shearson obtain a substitute bond in her name alone. Shearson now holds the proceeds from the sale of the substitute bond which came due after the litigation started. Demand was made on Shearson not to distribute the bond or its proceeds to Adler as Motzkin claimed ownership, conversion, and a beneficial interest with respect to the proceeds of the original bond.
By way only of a motion to dismiss, Adler contended that her father’s claim cannot be used by the broker, even by way of filing an interpleader action, to deprive her of a contractual right to immediate distribution as the account holder in whose name the substitute bond was obtained.
The trial court determined as a matter of law that an interpleader is not authorized on these allegations as Motzkin can bring a separate action for damages against Adler even after the broker distributes the bond proceeds to her. The court granted the motion to dismiss and at the same time ordered Shearson to deliver the substitute bond or its proceeds to Adler. We note that the trial court’s order directing Shear-son to distribute was also effectively a ruling on the merits regarding Shearson’s obligation, if any, to Motzkin as his agent or bailee. No evidentiary hearing has been held.
Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.240 an interpleader may be brought where a plaintiff is faced with conflicting claims that may result in double or multiple liability. The rule provides that “it is not ground for objection to the joinder that the claim[s] ... do not have a common origin or are not identical but are adverse to and independent of one another....” On the face of this record, prior to the trial court order, Shearson was' faced with conflicting claims to the same asset in its custody and risked exposure to double liability unless the claims are resolved in one action. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the action and the orders thereon are reversed for further proceedings. Having determined that the cause may be brought pursuant to the rule, we need not address whether all elements of common law inter-pleader are met on these pleadings.
WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zimmerman v. Cade Enters., Inc., 34 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…A 1988); Newkirk Constr. Corp. v. Gulf County, 366 So. 2d 813(Fla. 1st DCA 1979). A party may not object to inter-pleader on the grounds that one of the remaining three common law requirements is not met. See, e.g., Motzkin v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 611 So. 2d 592, 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (reiterating that the language of rule 1.240 provides that a party cannot object to joinder in interpleader on any ground except “where a plaintiff is faced with conflicting claims that may result in double or multiple liabi…
-
Errol Rainess v. In re Est. OF Keiko MacHida, 81 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…CA 1988); Newkirk Constr. Corp. v. Gulf Cnty., 366 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). A party may not object to interpleader on the grounds that one of the remaining three common law requirements is not met. See, e.g., Motzkin v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 611 So. 2d 592, 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (reiterating that the language of rule 1.240 provides that a party cannot object to joinder in interpleader on any ground except “where a plaintiff is faced with conflicting claims that may result in double or multiple liabi…
-
Prince v. Underhill, 670 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…e second condition listed above, a plaintiff must allege that it faces conflicting claims to an asset in its custody and that it risks exposure to double liability unless the claims are resolved in one action. Motzkin v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc., 611 So. 2d 592, 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). However, if the conflicting claims are not to the same asset or fund, the plaintiff is not entitled to an interpleader. See Treasure Cay, 489 So. 2d at 867 (holding that chair manufacturer was not entitled to interplead buy…