JOSEPH LUSKIN AND MILDRED LUSKIN, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
MARIE RUTH LUSKIN, PAUL LUSKIN, ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 Luskins appeal from an order assessing $352,250.05 in attorney's fees and costs against them. The court affirms the fee award, which was entered after the Luskins lost on a fraudulent conveyance claim and had two prior judgments entered against them in related proceedings.
The court affirms the assessment of attorney's fees and costs. The Luskins conceded that if both the underlying September 1988 money judgment and the April 1990 supplemental judgment were affirmed, the fee award should also be affirmed, and both underlying judgments were affirmed.
[1] A trial court may enter an order taxing attorney's fees and costs against defendants who have fraudulently conveyed property to third parties to insulate assets from exec…
[2] A judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs may be affirmed on appeal if underlying judgments upon which it is based are affirmed.
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“The Luskins concede that if both the September 16, 1988, money judgment, and the April 30, 1990, supplemental final judgment are affirmed on appeal, the instant appeal should also be affirmed.”
Establishes that the Luskins' own concession regarding the fee award provided the basis for affirmance.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a 1988 dissolution of marriage judgment requiring the Luskins to return $250,000 to the marital estate, Marie Ruth Luskin obtained multiple …
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 Execution Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
SCOTT, ROBERT C., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a final order and judgment entered October 1, 1990, which assessed $352,250.05 in attorney’s fees and costs against the appellants. The appellants are Joseph and Mildred Luskin (“the Luskins”). The appellees are Marie Ruth Luskin (“Marie”), and the law firm of Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A. (“YST”).
The facts relevant to the instant appeal are that on February 3, 1988, a final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered between Marie and the Luskins’ son, wherein the Luskins were ordered to return $250,000 to the marital estate for partial equitable distribution. Subsequently, on May 11, 1988, YST, counsel for Marie, recovered attorney’s fees of $111,715.72 against the Luskins. On September 16, 1988, in a separate jury trial of Marie’s civil theft claim, Marie recovered a final judgment of $10,929,550 against the Luskins. On January 19, 1989, YST recovered attorneys’ fees of $98,350.92 against the Lus-kins. The appellees were issued writs of execution based on each of these judgments. The appellees ultimately filed a motion for proceedings supplementary due to the fact that certain writs were outstanding and unsatisfied. Consequently, on April 30, 1990, the trial court entered an order after jury verdict in favor of the appellees, finding that the Luskins had fraudulently conveyed certain real property to third parties in order to insulate assets from execution.
Derivative to these proceedings, on October 1, 1990, the trial court entered an order and final judgment in favor of the appel-lees, which taxed $352,250.05 in appellees’ fees and costs against the Luskins and the third party defendants. This appeal followed.
The Luskins concede that if both the September 16, 1988, money judgment, and the April 30, 1990, supplemental final judgment are affirmed on appeal, the instant appeal should also be affirmed. The civil theft money judgment was partially affirmed by this court on or about December 3, 1992, and the supplemental judgment was affirmed on this date. Thus, we affirm the instant appeal.
LETTS, J„ and DOWNEY, JAMES C„ Senior Judge, concur.