Helmick v. Taylor
A mother-in-law sued her former son-in-law claiming she was an intended third-party beneficiary of the marital settlement agreement in which he agreed to pay loans she and her mother had made to him. The Second District affirmed summary judgment for the former son-in-law, holding that merely naming a creditor and the debt amount in a marital settlement agreement that allocates marital debts does not clearly express an intent to primarily and directly benefit that creditor.
Key facts
- Mother-in-law sued her former son-in-law claiming she was an intended third-party beneficiary of a marital settlement agreement in which he agreed to pay loans she and her mother had made to him.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the former son-in-law; the Second District affirmed.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This is the Second District's clearest statement that naming a creditor in a marital settlement agreement's debt-allocation clause does not confer third-party beneficiary standing, and it expressly declines to follow… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.