AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY AND EMIL MORTON, APPELLANTS,
v.
BENJAMIN POLLOCK, APPELLEE; BENJAMIN POLLOCK, APPELLANT, V. FLAGSHIP FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Bank satisfied its obligations under the second judgment by delivering a quit-claim deed, and therefore the supersedeas bond should not be used to satisfy the prior money judgment.
Pollock obtained a money judgment against T & M. Pollock then sued to set aside a fraudulent conveyance from T & M to the Bank. After an appeal, Morto…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Agreed Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pollock obtained a money judgment against T & M Investments, Inc. (T & M). In order to satisfy a writ of execution, he then instituted an action against T & M and Morton (as an officer of T & M and beneficiary of a trust holding the property sought to be executed upon) seeking to set aside a fraudulent conveyance from T & M to Flagship First National Bank of Miami Beach (Bank). Pollock prevailed and an order was entered requiring the Bank, as trustee, to execute a warranty deed in favor of T & M. Morton appealed and filed a supersede-as bond in the amount of $25,000 for which Aetna was the surety. The trial court’s order was affirmed here. Morton v. Pollock, 386 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Subsequently, Morton filed a suit against the trustee of T & M, Pollock and the Bank to impress an equitable lien upon the property which was the subject of the second lawsuit. During these proceedings, the parties by agreed order stipulated that the Bank could satisfy its obligation under the judgment in the second case by delivering a quit-claim deed into the court registry. Thereupon, the Bank complied with the court order. Pollock then sought to obtain payment of the supersedeas bond in order to satisfy the money judgment from the first case. The court granted this motion precipitating this appeal by Aetna and Morton. After the notice of appeal was filed, Pollock filed a motion to compel and/or for sanctions against the Bank, seeking to compel the Bank to deliver a warranty deed. Pollock cross-appeals the denial of this motion.
We conclude that the Bank, by complying with the agreed order requiring conveyance of a quit-claim deed, has satisfied the obligations it owed under the second judgment. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erroneously ordered that the bond be utilized to satisfy the prior money judgment.
Because the Bank has complied with the final judgment, Pollock’s motion to compel was properly denied.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.