Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

Sometimes, parties besides spouses are involved in a Florida divorce. The most common scenario is when money is owed to a third party which is claimed to be owed by the spouses jointly. The third party may intervene in the case to protect his or her interest in property or to assure a debt will be paid. This was an issue in the case Loginov v. Samoilova, 3D21-2457 (Fla. 3d DCA August 10, 2022).

The husband and wife were divorced by a Russian court. As part of their divorce, the husband sought to have a debt he owed to his stepbrother recognized as a joint debt of the spouses. The husband and stepbrother entered an agreement for the stepbrother to loan him money to purchase real property in South Florida. The Russian court recognized the debt as a joint debt of the husband and wife but declined to allocate the debt between the spouses because the wife was not a party to the contract between the husband and stepbrother. The husband and wife later sold the property in South Florida and entered into an agreement to split the proceeds equally. Shortly thereafter, the stepbrother sued the husband and wife for domestication of the Russian judgment, an equitable lien on the real property and foreclosure of the lien. The trial court entered an order holding “(1) the Russian judgments could be domesticated but they did not grant [the stepbrother] a right to collect from [the wife]; (2) [the stepbrother’s] claim for an equitable lien was improper because [the stepbrother] had an adequate remedy at law; and (3) [the stepbrother]could not seek foreclosure because he was not entitled to an equitable lien.” The stepbrother appealed.

The appellate court first held “The trial court, however, properly weighed the relative experience of the two expert witnesses, the contradictory testimony provided and the plain language of the Russian judgments when it determined the Russian judgments did not grant [the stepbrother] a monetary liability against [the wife].” As to the equitable lien, the court held “Here, [the stepbrother] and [the husband] entered into a written loan agreement for the 67,000,000 rubles at issue. As such, an express contract governing the 67,000,000 loan exists and [the stepbrother] cannot pursue an equitable lien based on a claim of unjust enrichment. [. . .] Additionally, we note [the stepbrother] received a remedy at law because, as stated in the Russian judgments, he already obtained a judgment in Russia against [the husband] for the 67,000,000 rubles based on the loan agreement. [internal citation omitted]. Thus, the trial court properly denied [the stepbrother’s] claim for an equitable lien.”

Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.