Mhoon v. Singleton, BN-80
| Citation | 503 So.2d 374,12 Fla. L. Weekly 525 |
| Decision Date | 13 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. BN-80,BN-80 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 525 James E. MHOON, Appellant, v. Geneva Ann SINGLETON, f/k/a Geneva Ann Mhoon, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Michael V. Mattson, of Simpson & Mattson, Jacksonville, for appellant.
James E. Thompson, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant seeks review of an order by which a complaint for indemnification or contribution was dismissed. We find that the allegations of the complaint do not support a cause of action for either indemnification or contribution, and we therefore affirm the order appealed.
Appellant's marriage to appellee was dissolved by a judgment which awarded appellee a parcel of property. The parties had previously held this property with a mortgage indebtedness as husband and wife, and the award was made pursuant to a stipulated property settlement agreement. Although the settlement agreement provided that appellee would receive the property subject to the mortgage, neither the agreement nor the dissolution decree contained any other provision addressing the parties' debt obligation in connection with this property. The settlement agreement further provided that the parties had no other written or oral agreements or understandings.
Appellant subsequently filed a complaint seeking indemnification or contribution from appellee. The complaint alleged that appellee had not made mortgage payments for the property awarded in the dissolution, and that a foreclosure action had been instituted against appellant, resulting in a deficiency judgment to which appellee was not a party. It further alleged that appellant had satisfied the judgment by a negotiated settlement, for which appellant sought indemnification or contribution.
Appellant's conveyance of the property subject to the mortgage did not in and of itself create any right of indemnification. Alabama-Florida Co. v. Mays, 111 Fla. 100, 149 So. 61 (1933). While appellant's complaint alleges a "verbal understanding" as to indemnification, this allegation is negated by the express and unambiguous terms of the settlement agreement. Since the agreement is unambiguous, parol evidence would be inadmissible. Lemon v. Aspen Emerald Lakes Associates Ltd., 446 So.2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The allegation of a verbal understanding being thus negated, it will not support a cause of action for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tiedeman v. City of Miami
...this record that the plaintiffs could not by amendment have possibly shown any standing to bring this lawsuit. See Mhoon v. Singleton, 503 So.2d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Winchester Corp. v. Miami Free Zone Corp., 443 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Dade County Police Benevolent......
-
McVeigh v. Mirabito, 89-0155
...A conveyance of property subject to the mortgage does not in and of itself create any right of indemnification. Mhoon v. Singleton, 503 So.2d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The grantee of land which is subject to a mortgage assumes no personal liability for the obligation secured by the mort......