Meyer v. Faust
| Decision Date | 14 December 1955 |
| Citation | 83 So.2d 847 |
| Parties | Hedwig MEYER, Appellant, v. Miriam FAUST, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Horton & Horton, Miami, for appellant.
Berman & McClosky, Miami, for appellee.
The appellee Faust, plaintiff in the court below, obtained a judgment in a law action against Theodore Meyer, husband of the appellant, Hedwig Meyer. Upon return of execution nulla bona, supplementary proceedings were instituted by affidavit filed pursuant to Sec. 55.52, F.S.1953, F.S.A., reciting only the facts with reference to the unsuccessful execution upon judgment against Theodore Meyer. The order issued by the court, however, and served upon the parties, directed both Theodore and his wife Hedwig, who had been co-defendant in the original cause but against whom no judgment was entered, to appear on a specified date 'to be examined concerning the property of the defendant, Theodore Meyer.'
The record contains an opinion of the court reciting that all parties were present at the hearing, represented by counsel, and gave testimony; that from all the evidence the court 'tended to believe' that a certain transfer of funds from Theodore to Hedwig, subsequently invested in properties held by them in tenancy by entirety, was fraudulent as to judgment creditors; and at that time the court told counsel 'he would receive law and fact by virtue of a brief to show cause' why the transfer should not be voided and the property held amenable to execution as that of Theodore, individually. No response was made by the appellant, Hedwig Meyer, and after the lapse of time allowed an order and final judgment was duly entered, finding, among other things, that the transfer and investment of funds in question 'was, and is, fraudulent as to the plaintiff, Miriam Faust, and (she) is entitled to levy execution upon the property 'owned by appellant and her husband as an estate by entirety.' A nunc pro tunc order subsequently modified or corrected that portion of the original order directing only that execution issue against properties of the defendant, Theodore Meyer, so as to permit execution 'against the aforesaid properties of the defendant * * * said properties being in the nemas of Theodore Meyer and/or Hedwig Meyer * * * including the real estate, the furniture, fixtures and stock' in certain property involved, a restaurant.
The sole issue presented for decision upon this appeal from the above order relates to the jurisdiction of the court to proceed against appellant so as to adjudicate, on the basis of a finding of fraud, that property owned by her and her husband, in entireties, was subject to execution to satisfy a judgment against Theodore individually.
Such a property interest cannot, prima facie, be reached to satisfy the individual judgment debt or other obligation of either party under the law of this state. Hunt v. Covington, 145 Fla. 706, 200 So. 76. And...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. One Single Family Residence With Out Buildings Located at 15621 S.W. 209th Ave., Miami, Fla.
...(per curiam). Creditors cannot levy on entireties property to satisfy the debt of an individual spouse. Meyer v. Faust, 83 So.2d 847, 848 (Fla.1955). The state cannot deem entireties property forfeit because of the unlawful conduct of one spouse acting alone. Smith v. Hindery, 454 So.2d 663......
-
In re Willoughby
...judgment or execution liens against either of the tenants individually. Winters v. Parks, 91 So.2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1956); Meyer v. Faust, 83 So.2d 847, 848 (Fla.1955); Vaughn v. Mandis, 53 So.2d 704, 705-06 (Fla.1951); Hunt v. Covington, 145 Fla. 706, 708, 200 So. 76, 77 (1941); Ohio Butteri......
-
Havoco of America v. Hill, 97-2277
...preserved in a proceeding to which she is not a party and in which her property rights may effectively be terminated.6 See Meyer v. Faust, 83 So.2d 847, 848 (Fla.1955); see also Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 433-434, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1156-1157, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) (holding th......
-
In re Cochrane
...whose claims run against only one of the individuals in the marriage. Sharp v. Hamilton, 520 So.2d 9, 10 (Fla.1988); Meyer v. Faust, 83 So.2d 847, 848 (Fla.1955); Hunt v. Covington, 145 Fla. 706, 200 So. 76, 77 (1941); Miller v. Rosenthal, 510 So.2d 1127, 1128 (Fla.Ct.App.1987). The nature ......
-
Valuing interest in tenancies by the entirety under craft.
...Baldwin v. United States, 805 F.Supp. 1026 (S.D. Fla. 1992); In re Daniels, 309 B.R. 54 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2004); and Meyer v. Faust, 83 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1955); Vaughn v. Mandis, 53 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1951); Allardice & Allardice, Inc. v. Weatherlow, 124 So. 38 (Fla. (7) If the spouses are......