Law v. Law
A former wife sought indemnification from her ex-husband under the 'debts and obligations ... holding the other harmless' clause of their mediated settlement agreement for fees and costs incurred defending her alimony and fee awards against the husband's personal creditors in a collateral foreclosure action. The trial court denied relief by treating the clause as a prevailing-party attorney's fee provision. The Third DCA reversed, holding a hold harmless clause is a contract of indemnity enforceable regardless of prevailing-party status, and that the wife properly enforced it by post-judgment motion in the dissolution case where the court reserved jurisdiction.
Key facts
- Former wife sought indemnification from ex-husband under a 'hold harmless' clause in their mediated marital settlement agreement for attorney's fees and costs incurred defending her alimony and fee awards against the husband's personal creditors in a collateral foreclosure action.
- Trial court denied the wife's request by treating the hold harmless clause as a prevailing-party attorney's fee provision rather than a contract of indemnity.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Practitioners drafting or enforcing marital settlement agreements can use this decision to recover fees and costs incurred defending marital awards from an ex-spouse's creditors, even absent a prevailing-party fee… — 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.