GOODIE RYSKIND, APPELLANT,
v.
LUCILLE S. ROBINSON ET AL., 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 reversed a portion of a summary judgment, finding that the appellant's affirmative defenses of fraud should have been considered at trial rather than disposed of in a summary proceeding. The court held that homestead property cannot be used to shield against fraudulent transactions.
Yes, the trial court erred. The appellant's affirmative defense of fraud is a legal defense that raises a genuine issue of material fact, which should be determined at trial, not in a summary proceeding.
[1] The homestead exemption cannot be used as a shield against a fraudulent transaction, and an equitable lien may arise and be enforced against homestead property under such…
[2] An affirmative defense of fraud, sufficiently pled, creates a genuine issue of material fact that should be determined at trial on the merits and cannot be disposed of in…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 trial court erroneously determined that the affirmative defenses raised by the appellant (cross-defendant below) did not constitute legal defenses to the homestead property.”
Establishes the core error made by the lower court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought to establish a lien on homestead property, alleging she was fraudulently induced to lend money used to pay off a mortgage on that…
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 Homestead Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Based upon our consideration of the record on appeal, briefs and oral argument, we are of the opinion that the summary final judgment should be reversed, in part. If the only issue to be determined was whether the property in question was “homestead” property the final judgment would have been affirmed on the authority of Estate of Deem v. Shinn, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 611. However, the trial court erroneously determined that the affirmative defenses raised by the appellant (cross-defendant below) did not constitute legal defenses to the homestead property. By such defenses, appellant sought to have a lien established upon the homestead property contending that she was fraudulently induced to lend monies which were specifically used to pay off certain mortgage indebtedness on the property. There is authority for the proposition that the homestead exemption cannot be used as a shield against a fraudulent transaction and that under such circumstances an equitable lien might arise which may be enforced against homestead. Jones v. Carpenter, 90 Fla. 407, 106 So. 127 (1925); La Mar v. Lechlider, 135 Fla. 703, 185 So. 833 (1939); Sonneman v. Tuszynski, 139 Fla. 824, 191 So. 18 (1939). Cf. Unkefer v. Merritt, Fla.App. 1968, 207 So. 2d 726.
The appellant’s affirmative defense of fraud is a “legal defense” which was sufficiently pled and created a genuine issue of material fact to be proven at trial on the merits and ought not to have been disposed of at a summary proceeding. Krantz v. Donner, Fla.App.1973, 285 So. 2d 699; Auto Sales, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co., Fla.App. 1972, 256 So. 2d 386; Shaffran v. Holness, Fla. 1957, 93 So. 2d 94; see also Bond v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 246 So. 2d 631.
Accordingly, paragraph 1 of the final judgment is vacated and the cause remanded to the trial court for the purpose of conducting further proceedings consistent herewith; in all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part.
OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MA-GER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palm Beach Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fishbein, 619 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1993)…usly, the Court believed that the equitable circumstances of that ease fell within the spirit of the exceptions to the constitutional exemption of homestead property. See also Craven v. Hartley, 102 Fla. 282, 135 So. 899 (1931); Ryskind v. Robinson, 302 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Thus, it is apparent that where equity demands it this Court has not hesitated to permit equitable liens to be imposed on homesteads beyond the literal language of article X, section 4. However, the court below was not so conce…
-
Whigham v. Muehl, 511 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…based upon an equitable lien theory. An equitable lien will not be awarded against homestead property in the absence of fraud or reprehensible conduct. Clutter Construction Corp. v. Clutter, 173 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965); Ryskind v. Robinson, 302 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1974). Although the appealed order contains no such finding, the conduct of the defendant might be susceptible to such a finding had the trial court considered the point. Instead, the court ruled that appellant could not, as a matter of law, pr…
-
Parnell v. Hartford Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Hartford, 307 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…chetter v. Jordan, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 130; Krantz v. Donner, Fla.App. 1973, 285 So. 2d 699; Allen v. Belcher, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 303 So. 2d 55, opinion filed November 8, 1974; Ryskind v. Robinson, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 302 So. 2d 427, opinion filed October 31, 1974. The suit below sought damages for, among other things, unlawful trespass of the plaintiff-appellant’s property and unlawful conversion of plaintiff’s automobile as occasioned by the defendant’s repossession of plain…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Morgan F. Jones in Bankr. of Jacksonville Bread Co. v. Carpenter, 106 So. 127 (Fla. 1925)
- Shaffran v. Holness, 93 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1957)
- Holmes La Mar v. Lechlider, 135 Fla. 703 (Fla. 1939)
- Mrs. Matilda Sonneman v. Tuszynski, 139 Fla. 824 (Fla. 1939)
- Auto. Sales, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co., 256 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- In re the Est. of Frank C. Deem v. Shinn, 297 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Wright v. Weinstock, 246 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Bond v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 246 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Unkefer v. Condor Merritt et ux., 207 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Dickerson v. State, 285 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)