J. LOUISE MCCOLLISTER, APPELLANT,
v.
LESTER C. MCCOLLISTER, DOLORES WILSEY AND SWAP MEET, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 appellate court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff, who was awarded a one-half interest in "Swap Meet" in a divorce decree, sought to claim a one-half interest in a subsequent license agreement, alleging it was an extension of "Swap Meet". The court found no evidence to support her claim.
No, the appellant is not entitled to a one-half interest in the license agreement. The court found no evidence that the license agreement was an extension of "Swap Meet" or that any interest had been improperly transferred.
[1] A creditor's bill action cannot be maintained under Florida Statutes § 68.05 or § 56.29(6)(a) when the underlying judgment is not for a money judgment.
[2] A party seeking to establish an interest in an enterprise must demonstrate a transfer of interest or a valid claim to such interest.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“First, the action could not be maintained as a creditor’s bill pursuant to the provisions of 68.05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., nor as an action under § 56.29(6) (a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.”
Establishes one of the primary legal grounds for dismissing the appellant's claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a divorce decree awarding the appellant a one-half interest in "Swap Meet", she filed a separate suit claiming a one-half interest in a late…
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 Bona Fide Transaction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, secured a final judgment of divorce from the appellee, Lester C. McCollister, in December, 1967. Among other provisions of the final judgment, the chancellor awarded the plaintiff a one-half interest in “Swap Meet”; no further description of this enterprise was contained in the final judgment. Subsequently, the appellant instituted an independent suit which she entitled a Creditor’s Bill, alleging entry of the final judgment of divorce and seeking, in addition to relief in the nature of a creditor’s bill, certain other relief related to a certain license agreement which had been entered into in July, 1967 between Tropicaire Drive-In Theatre, Inc., and the appellee, Wilsey. It was the contention of the appellant that this license was an extension of the operation of “Swap Meet” and that she was entitled to a one-half interest therein. Following many hearings, the trial court ultimately entered a final summary judgment holding that the defendants were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. This appeal ensued; we affirm.
First, the action could not be maintained as a creditor’s bill pursuant to the provisions of 68.05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., nor as an action under § 56.29(6) (a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Second, there was no *491transfer of any interest between the appel-lee, McCollister, to the appellee, Wilsey. Third, it is apparent that any interest that the appellee, McCollister, may have had in “Swap Meet” was terminated by action of the landlord some years prior to the entry of the final judgment of divorce for defaults on the part of McCollister. And, even if not so done, by its very terms the original agreement held by McCollister expired in September, 1967. Lastly, the record is completely devoid of any evidence or reasonable inference therefrom that the license agreement held by the ap-pellee, Wilsey, was not in fact a bona fide transaction.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final summary judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCOLLISTER v. McCOLLISTER, 252 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1971)…Certiorari denied. 248 So. 2d 490. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and McCAIN, JJ., concur. DEKLE, J., dissents.…