MARGARET DUNCAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL, APPELLEES; MARGARET DUNCAN, APPELLANT, V. THE ESTATE OF ROY DUNCAN, AND CARMEN S. DUNCAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, 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.
Margaret Duncan appealed two dismissal orders in disputes with her former husband's estate and his widow Carmen Duncan over life insurance proceeds. The court affirmed the dismissals, holding that res judicata barred Margaret's renewed attempt to claim the SGLI policy proceeds and that attorney's fees were properly awarded under the offer of judgment statute.
The court affirmed that Margaret's complaint was properly dismissed based on res judicata and estoppel because she had already litigated the issue of the SGLI policy proceeds in the prior interpleader action. The court also affirmed that attorney's fees were properly awarded under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, because the statute applies to civil actions for damages, Carmen was the prevailing party, and no good faith objection was raised below.
[1] Federal law precludes a state from imposing a trust on the proceeds of a Servicemen's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) policy.
[2] Equitable principles may support the establishment of a constructive trust or other right with respect to assets other than SGLI policy proceeds.
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“federal precedent precludes a state from imposing a trust on the proceeds of an SGLI policy, but does not preclude establishing a constructive trust or other right, based on equitable principles, with respect to other assets”
Establishes the legal limitation on Margaret's ability to claim the SGLI proceeds while leaving open the possibility of equitable remedies regarding other assets
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoy Duncan, the deceased, had a Servicemen's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) policy with Carmen Duncan designated as beneficiary. Margaret Duncan, Roy's f…
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 Imposition Of Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In a previous appeal of an interpleader action involving Margaret Duncan, the former wife of the deceased, and Carmen Duncan, widow of the deceased, this court affirmed the determination that Carmen, as the designated beneficiary under her deceased husband’s Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) policy, was entitled to the proceeds of the policy. See Duncan v. Duncan, 662 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
The court went on to suggest that Margaret might be able to impose a constructive trust or other right to continue to receive $300 per month, representing her former husband’s alimony obligation, based on an acknowledged moral obligation. The court specifically noted that federal precedent precludes a state from imposing a trust on the proceeds of an SGLI policy, but does not preclude establishing a constructive trust or other right, based on equitable principles, with respect to other assets. See id.
Rather than seeking to impose a constructive trust for $300 per month based on the acknowledged moral obligation referred to in that opinion, in case no.96-3635, Margaret once again sought to impose a trust on the entire $200,000 proceeds of the SGLI, or to otherwise obtain assets representing the entire $200,000.
The trial court dismissed her complaint based on principles of res judi-cata and estoppel by judgment. While we agree with appellant that these are affirmative defenses which ordinarily cannot be raised by motion to dismiss, appellant specifically incorporated the previous proceedings into her complaint by reference, thus the trial court had before it a complete history of this litigation. See, e.g., Lucas v. Davidson, 624 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(res judica-ta is affirmative defense that cannot be raised by motion to dismiss unless clear on face of pleadings).
We affirm the dismissal.
In case no. 96-3450, Margaret appeals an award of attorney’s fees in Carmen’s favor, based on the offer of judgment statute, section 768.79, Fla. Stat., contending that the statute was not applicable to the previous interpleader action because it was an equitable action, the offer was not made in good faith, and Carmen was not the prevailing party. We disagree. The statute applies to any civil action for damages, see, e.g., Burtman v. Porchester Holdings, Inc., 680 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(essential issue clearly a dispute over money), insofar as this record shows, the good faith issue was not raised below, and Carmen was the prevailing party in that action.
The orders appealed are AFFIRMED in all respects.
JOANOS, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gacek v. Avalon Dunes Condo. Owners Ass'n, Inc. (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)…n these reasons, we decline to address the trial court's additional reasons for dismissal based on collateral estoppel, the statute of limitations, and the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine. [*4] dismissal); see also Duncan v. Prudential Ins. Co., 690 So. 2d 687, 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (affirming dismissal where the appellant had "specifically incorporated the previous proceedings into her complaint by reference”). The Gaceks' reliance on Kest v. Nathanson, 216 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), is unavailin…
Authorities Cited
- Lucas v. Davidson, 624 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Burtman v. Porchester Holdings, Inc., John H. Faro, P.A., 680 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 662 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)