McLean v. McLean, No. 84-482

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtSCHEB; GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL
Citation461 So.2d 1031,10 Fla. L. Weekly 171
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 171 Sarah M. McLEAN, Appellant, v. Jack C. McLEAN, Appellee.
Decision Date11 January 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-482

Page 1031

461 So.2d 1031
10 Fla. L. Weekly 171
Sarah M. McLEAN, Appellant,
v.
Jack C. McLEAN, Appellee.
No. 84-482.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Second District.
Jan. 11, 1985.

Page 1032

Ronald P. Teevan Strohauer & Teevan, P.A., and John D. Fernandez, Clearwater, for appellant.

A.T. Cooper, III, Cooper & Cooper, Largo, for appellee.

SCHEB, Judge.

Sarah McLean appeals a partial summary judgment and final judgment allowing Jack McLean, her former husband, recovery on a promissory note that she had executed during their marriage. She raises two points: First, that the note was obtained under duress; and second, that the doctrine of res judicata bars her ex-husband's action on the note. We find no merit to either argument, but we discuss her contention that res judicata bars her ex-husband's recovery.

In 1982 the wife petitioned to dissolve the parties' marriage. She alleged that they owned no real property jointly and that the personal property that she and her husband did own had been amicably divided between them. The husband denied these allegations.

On May 10, 1983, the trial court entered a final judgment dissolving the marriage. The court's findings were limited to determining that the marriage was irretrievably broken, that the husband was to indemnify the wife against any loss occasioned by their filing a joint tax return for 1982, and that each party had agreed to be responsible for his or her own debts. The judgment made no provision for support or for division of property.

Before the dissolution the wife borrowed money from the husband so that she could live apart from him. She signed a $5,100 noninterest bearing demand promissory note representing a consolidation of several smaller notes, which she had given the husband for sums he had advanced to her. The dissolution proceeding did not involve the note.

After dissolution, the husband demanded payment of the note, and when the wife did not repay him, he brought suit against her. In her answer, the wife alleged that the husband obtained the note while their dissolution case was pending. She filed affirmative defenses that she was under duress when she executed the note, and that the doctrine of res judicata barred action on it. In response, the husband pointed out that the final judgment provided that each was responsible for individual debts.

The trial court granted a partial summary judgment for the husband on the res judicata issue. The matter then proceeded to trial on the issue of duress. The husband testified that the wife asked to borrow the money and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Slansky v. Slansky, No. 87-136
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • September 30, 1988
    ...Aubert v. Aubert, 129 N.H. 422, 425-26, 529 A.2d 909, 911 (1987) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted); see also McLean v. McLean, 461 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (divorce not res judicata as to action on promissory note executed during marriage); Harris v. Harris, 149 Ga.A......
  • United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Law Offices of Michael I. Libman, No. 3D09-2197
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 2010
    ...to the PIP lawsuits, "[t]he mere reference to a prior controversy is insufficient to raise the res judicata issue." McLean v. McLean, 461 So. 2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Moreover, on the merits, the judgments entered in the PIP lawsuits determined whether there was insurance coverage,......
  • Nielsen-Miller Const. Co. v. Pantlin/Prescott, Inc., NIELSEN-MILLER
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 29, 1992
    ...the judgment or decree bears interest at the rate specified in such written contract or obligation. The maker relies on McLean v. McLean, 461 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), which denied post-judgment interest under section 55.03(1) because the instrument was payable on demand and without in......
3 cases
  • Slansky v. Slansky, No. 87-136
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • September 30, 1988
    ...Aubert v. Aubert, 129 N.H. 422, 425-26, 529 A.2d 909, 911 (1987) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted); see also McLean v. McLean, 461 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (divorce not res judicata as to action on promissory note executed during marriage); Harris v. Harris, 149 Ga.A......
  • United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Law Offices of Michael I. Libman, No. 3D09-2197
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 2010
    ...to the PIP lawsuits, "[t]he mere reference to a prior controversy is insufficient to raise the res judicata issue." McLean v. McLean, 461 So. 2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Moreover, on the merits, the judgments entered in the PIP lawsuits determined whether there was insurance coverage,......
  • Nielsen-Miller Const. Co. v. Pantlin/Prescott, Inc., NIELSEN-MILLER
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 29, 1992
    ...the judgment or decree bears interest at the rate specified in such written contract or obligation. The maker relies on McLean v. McLean, 461 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), which denied post-judgment interest under section 55.03(1) because the instrument was payable on demand and without in......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT