Huttig v. Huffman
| Decision Date | 21 July 1942 |
| Citation | 151 Fla. 166,9 So.2d 506 |
| Parties | HUTTIG v. HUFFMAN et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1942.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Worth W Trammell, judge.
C. Arthur Yergey and G. P. Garrett, both of Orlando, for appellant.
Hyzer & Padgett, Inman Padgett, and Thomas H. Teasely, all of Miami, for appellees.
Appeal brings for review judgment in favor of third party claimant in a suit where execution was levied on a boat as the property of judgment debtor and which claim of title and right of possession of the boat was claimed by a corporation of which the judgment debtor was President.
The record shows that the boat was the property of the claimant, an Ohio corporation. The record also shows that the corporation was organized long prior to the creation of the obligation which is the basis of the judgment and that the judgment debtor has not owned more than one share of stock in the Ohio corporation since 1932. There is no evidence to the contrary.
It is the contention of appellant that the majority of the stock of the corporation is held in the name of Hazel B. Huffman, the wife of R. C. Huffman, the judgment debtor, but that she holds the same in trust for the judgment debtor, and that the third party claimant is the alter ego of the judgment debtor.
The evidence shows that the majority stock of the corporation is owned by Hazel B. Huffman and that she furnished the consideration which paid for the same.
Section 1 of Article XI of our Constitution provides: 'All property real and personal, of a wife owned by her before marriage, or lawfully acquired afterward by gift, devise, bequest descent, or purchase, shall be her separate property, and the same shall not be liable for the debts of her husband without her consent given by some instrument in writing executed according to the law respecting conveyances by married women.' In this case, however, the title to the corporate stock is not in issue. No corporate stock has been levied on. The matter in question is the ownership of the boat which was levied on. No fraud in the creation of the corporation has been alleged or proved. No fraud in the purchase of the boat with funds of and in the name of the corporation is shown.
It appears to us that none of the cases cited by counsel are applicable here.
Appellant relies on the cases of Mercer v. Hooker, 5 Fla. 277, and Craig v. Gamble, 5 Fla. 430, for support of the contention that the property here involved is subject to execution. We have carefully considered these cases and find them to be not in point.
The question here presented is whether the boat on which execution is levied is the property of the third party claimant and that it is so is not only proved, but is admitted, but it is contended that such ownership is in law the ownership of the judgment debtor. Now, if the bona fides of the existence of the corporation as a separate entity is to be attacked, it must be in a court of equity, giving all interested parties the opportunity to be heard.
In 13 Am.Juris 160, Sec. 7, we find:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Cohen
...sale under writ of execution in Florida; they must either be reached by supplemental proceedings or by creditors suit. Huttig v. Huffman, 151 Fla. 166, 9 So.2d 506 (1942). Furthermore, a mortgage on real estate, being a contract lien on the land, is not subject to levy and sale under writ o......
-
Trueman Fertilizer Co. v. Allison
...v. Lincoln Securities Co., 118 Fla. 164, 160 So. 12; Bellaire Securities Corporation v. Brown, 124 Fla. 47, 168 So. 625; Huttig v. Huffman, 151 Fla. 166, 9 So.2d 506. See also 13 Am.Jur., Corporations, Section 7. This rule should have special vitality under circumstances present here where ......
-
Nelson v. Nelson
...are indispensable parties ...." (citing Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 245, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958) ; Huttig v. Huffman, 151 Fla. 166, 9 So.2d 506, 507 (1942) ; First Nat'l Bank of Hollywood v. Broward Nat'l Bank of Fort Lauderdale, 265 So.2d 377, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) )); ......
-
First Nat. Bank of Hollywood v. Broward Nat. Bank of Fort Lauderdale
...Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 734. Trustees have also been held indispensable in a suit seeking to dissolve or terminate a trust, Huttig v. Huffman, 1942, 151 Fla. 166, 9 So.2d 506, and in a suit to preserve an original fund out of which the trust was created, Indian Lake Club v. Hainsworth, Fla.App.1......