Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

Sometimes after parties are divorced, they choose to maintain financial ties with each other. While this sometimes works out well for both parties, it may give rise to costly future litigation when it does not work out. Such was the case in Greenshields v. Greenshields, 5D19-758 (Fla. 5th DCA January 22, 2021).

The pertinent facts of this case can be summed up as follows: After the parties divorced, the former husband loaned the former wife money to buy a house. She then granted the former husband a power of attorney to sell the home in which she was living. The power of attorney entitled the former husband to “full repayment of all and any advances including interest, insurance, utilities or other charges incurred either with the” home in which the former wife was living and the home she wished to purchase. The former wife ultimately repaid the former husband all but $20,000 of what she owed him for the loan, and she withheld that amount and placed it in her attorney’s trust account. She then filed a lawsuit against the former husband alleging he owed $20,000 in alimony arrears.

The parties entered a mediated settlement agreement allowing the former wife to keep the $20,000. The agreement stated “The Wife hereby waives any and all claims she may have to arrearages in the amount of child support and alimony as of January 8, 2015. The parties acknowledge that all child support and alimony payments are current as of this date..” It further stated “This is the entire agreement of these parties on this subject. Unless explicitly modified by this agreement the provisions of the September 30, 2010 Marital Settlement Agreement remain in full force and effect." The former wife later contracted to sell her home and the former husband sought enforcement of the remainder of the loan due to him under their prior agreement. He filed a lis pendens which caused a pending sale to be cancelled. The former wife counterclaimed against the former husband for tortious interference with a contract.

The former wife argued the proceeding she initiated to recoup alimony arrears settled all money claims between the parties and the former husband should have asserted his claim for the loan payments due at the time she sued him for the alimony. The former husband countered that the claims were unrelated and that he was entitled to enforce the unpaid loan amount. The trial court agreed with the former wife and she was ultimately awarded $2925.31. The court denied the former wife’s tortious interference claim. Both parties appealed.

The appellate court started by discussing the two prong test to determine if a claim is compulsory in a lawsuit, and therefore whether or not the former husband was obligated to countersue the former wife for the unpaid loan at the time she sued him for alimony arrears. The court stated "The first prong of the 'logical relationship test' requires 'that the same aggregate of operative facts serves as the basis of both claims.' [. . .] The second prong of the 'logical relationship test' requires 'that the aggregate core of facts upon which the original claims rests activates additional legal rights in a party defendant that would otherwise remain dormant.'“ Finding that neither of these tests were met, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s directed verdict against the former husband on the basis that the claims were not related, and therefore it was not compulsory for the former husband to sue for the unpaid loan in relation to the alimony claim.

Furthermore, the court held “We also conclude that the court erred in directing a verdict in Former Wife's favor upon finding that the mediation agreement resolves all issues under the POA. Contrary to the trial court's finding, the mediation agreement does not resolve all issues under the POA. As both parties acknowledged below, the mediation agreement does not mention the POA, the loan, or any monies owed under the POA, nor does the agreement indicate it resolves all issues concerning monies owed.” As to the court’s denial of the former wife’s tortious interference claim, the appellate court held “While the court did not grant Former Husband's motion, the court did deny this claim, and it did so before giving Former Wife the opportunity to present her case in chief. Not only was the court required to submit the action to the jury upon denying Former Husband's motion, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.480(b), but the court's denial of the claim without allowing Former Wife the opportunity to present her case constitutes a due process violation.”

Schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer to go over your case and determine your best options in moving forward.