Baum v. Heiman, 86-2716
| Decision Date | 05 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2716,86-2716 |
| Citation | 528 So.2d 63,13 Fla. L. Weekly 1577 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1577 Abe BAUM, Individually, and as Trustee, Appellant, v. Ardis HEIMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Eliot R. Weitzman, Miami, for appellant.
Hershoff & Levy and Jay Levy, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL * and NESBITT, JJ.
Abe Baum appeals a final judgment granting Ardis Heiman restitution. We reverse.
Baum lent Heiman and her husband $40,000 which was evidenced by a promissory note. After her husband died, Heiman defaulted on the loan. Baum filed an action against her and obtained a judgment which he recorded, thereby obtaining a lien on a condominium held in her name. Another creditor, Capital Bank, also received a judgment against her which it recorded. Heiman then filed a petition in probate court to have the condominium declared her husband's homestead property in order to protect it from the many creditors who had been attracted by the probate of his estate. That court ruled that the property was not his homestead because record title was not in his name.
The condominium was sold and Baum's and Capital Bank's judgments were satisfied. Heiman appealed the probate court ruling but named only Capital Bank as a party. In Heiman v. Capital Bank, 438 So.2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), motion denied, 447 So.2d 885 (Fla.1984), this court reversed holding that Heiman was entitled to demonstrate that her husband retained a beneficial interest in the unit sufficient to have it designated homestead even though only her name appeared in the deed. On remand, the trial court concluded that the husband had retained a beneficial interest in the property; therefore, the condominium was entitled to homestead protection. Heiman later filed the action against Baum upon which this appeal is based, seeking restitution of the money paid him in satisfaction of his judgment. The trial court concluded that Baum had been improperly allowed to have his judgment satisfied from the proceeds of the sale of the unit "under the mistaken belief that the apartment was not homestead." Therefore, restitution was ordered. Baum now appeals.
The general rule is that one who surrenders property under an erroneous judgment is entitled to be restored to all that he has lost in the event of a reversal of the judgment. State ex rel. Hill v. Hearn, 99 So.2d 231 (Fla.1957); Silverman v. Lichtman, 296 So.2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mace v. M&T Bank
...under an erroneous judgment is entitled to be restored to all that he haslost in the event of a reversal of judgment." Baum v. Heiman, 528 So. 2d 63, 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (emphasis added) (citing State ex rel. Hill v. Hearn, 99 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1957)). The Supreme Court of Florida has also......
-
Sky Lake Gardens Recreation, Inc. v. Sky Lake Gardens No. 1, Inc.
...as here, at its request. See Marshall & Spencer Co. v. People's Bank of Jacksonville, 88 Fla. 190, 101 So. 358 (1924); Baum v. Heiman, 528 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Lonergan v. Lippman, 406 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 418 So.2d 1279 (Fla.1982); Mann v. Thompson, 118 So.2......
-
Martin v. Lenahan, 93-2669
...employment, at direction of his client and in legal manner, is not liable for the consequences of his client's actions); Baum v. Heiman, 528 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (restitution is appropriate against the party who prevails under the erroneous judgment not third parties); Sundie v. Hare......
-
Parties on appeal.
...1995). [10] Rule 9.020(g) similarly defines petitioners and respondents for Rule 9.100 or Rule 9.120 proceedings. [11] Baum v. Heiman, 528 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1988), recited the general rule that "one who surrenders property under an erroneous judgment is entitled to be restored to al......