EUGENIA A. GYOROK, FORMERLY EUGENLA A. DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
VERNON E. DAVIS, SHIRLEY J. SMITH AND PHILLIP A. SMITH, 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.
The appellate court reviewed an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing a cause against a respondent and vacating a lis pendens, where the plaintiff alleged a fraudulent conveyance of property by her ex-husband to his sister to hinder child support collection.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the cause against the respondent and vacation of the lis pendens, finding the plaintiff had shown no right to relief against the respondent.
The plaintiff sought to set aside a conveyance of her ex-husband's interest in jointly owned property to his sister, alleging it was fraudulent and ma…
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 Nominal Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal by plaintiff from an order dismissing the cause against respondent, Shirley J. Smith, and vacating lis pendens.
A final decree of divorce was entered on October 18, 1963 dissolving the marriage, a vinculo matrimonii, between the plaintiff, Eugenia A. Gyorok, formerly Eugenia A. Davis and defendant, Vernon E. Davis. This decree incorporated a property settlement agreement between the parties wherein the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff $75.00 per month for the support of each minor child which remained in her care and custody.
The defendant was in arrears in his child support payment and on April 6, 1964, plaintiff filed a petition to show cause and prayed for a writ of sequestration against defendant’s interest in property previously owned jointly by the parties. The property, to which defendant received a one-half undivided interest under the property settlement agreement, is described as follows:
Lot 19, in Block 10 of Randal Park, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 53, at Page 20, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
This proceeding was terminated by order entered April 20, 1964, defendant having paid all sums due plaintiff.
The defendant again became in arrears in the child support payments and on January 18, 1965, he was ordered to appear and show cause. Upon the failure of the defendant to appear the lower court entered judgment against him in the sum of $750.00 together with $50.00 attorney’s fees.
On April 21, 1965, plaintiff petitioned for a writ of sequestration against defendant’s interest in the previously described property, and attempted to join the respondent as a necessary party.
In her petition the plaintiff alleged that defendant conveyed his interest in said property to his sister, the respondent, by deed dated October 5, 1964 and filed December 1, 1964. It was further alleged that the conveyance was made without consideration for the fraudulent purpose, design, and intent to delay or hinder the plaintiff in her efforts to collect the child support payments due her.
*703At the close of plaintiff’s evidence upon trial of the cause, the court dismissed the cause against the respondent and vacated the lis pendens on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to the relief sought against the respondent.
Plaintiff contends that the lower court erred in dismissing the cause since the evidence presented is sufficient to withstand a dismissal in the nature of a directed verdict as it established a prima facie case to set aside the conveyance as fraudulent under § 726.01 Fla.Stat, F.S.A.1
Plaintiff’s evidence reveals that at the time of the hearing on her petition, the ar-rearages had increased to $2,150.00. Further, the conveyance at issue was made by a deed which recited a consideration of $10.00 and upon which there is a 300 Florida documentary stamp tax. Respondent was called as a witness for the plaintiff and testified that although the approximate value of the property was $10,000.00 she had given no money for the one-half interest conveyed to her. She stated that since his divorce, the defendant has from time to time stayed at her home without paying rent or board and at which times she had loaned him small amounts of money-
The defendant has a continuing obligation to furnish the plaintiff child support payments under the divorce decree so long as the minor children remain in her care and custody. During this period any conveyance of land by the defendant is void as against the plaintiff if it is in violation of § 726.01, supra. While a deed furnished on nominal consideration is not absolutely fraud per se, it does afford prima facie evidence of fraud.2 Moreover, where the transferee is a relative of the transferor, it tends to establish a prima facie case.3
Reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff we find that it is sufficient to establish a prima facie case. At this point the burden of going forward shifted to the defendant.4
Therefore, the order dismissing the cause at the close of plaintiff’s evidence is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the chancellor to set aside said order and proceed with the trial of the cause.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stephens v. Kies OIL Co., Inc., 386 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ney v. Powell, 139 So. 2d 702 (Fla.2d DCA 1962); Tornwall v. Carter, 106 So. 2d 96 (Fla.2d DCA 1958). The badges of fraud demonstrated by Kies, standing alone, unrebutted and uncontradicted would entitle Kies to a directed verdict. Gyorok v. Davis, 183 So. 2d 701 (Fla.3d DCA 1966). It is the intent to defraud one’s creditors which is a vital element to be established under Section 726.01, supra. Jackson v. Citizens’ Bank & Trust Co., 53 Fla. 265, 44 So. 516 (1907). In the present case, there was evidence pr…
-
Phelps v. Phelps, 369 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…PER CURIAM. The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment in favor of the appellant Violet Lydia Phelps based on the authority of Gyorok v. Davis, 183 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); §§ 56.29(6)(a), 726.01 Fla.Stat. (1977). In our view, a fraudulent conveyance of monies herein into the subject joint bank account was established by the appellant in the trial court as a matter of law.…
-
Pruett v. Browning, 444 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…er transactions were a sham and that crucial portions of the defendants’ testimony to the contrary were not worthy of belief. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Reinhart v. Reinhart, 291 So. 2d 103, 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Gyorok v. Davis, 183 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Affirmed.…
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
- Russ v. Blackshear, 88 Fla. 573 (Fla. 1925)
- Money v. Coy C. Powell and Kathleen Powell, 139 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- David L. Shannon and Helen v. Shannon, 105 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Hackley v. Oltz, 105 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)