← Case library
3rd DCAMay 11, 2022Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Remanded⭐ Notable

Wallace v. Torres-Rodriguez

Case No. 21-0244

A husband secretly transferred roughly $5 million in tenancy-by-the-entireties assets (cash, stocks, and three condominiums) to his longtime paramour without his wife's consent and in violation of a marital agreement and irrevocable trust. After a bench trial, the court imposed a constructive trust but allowed the recipient to keep three assets under the Restatement (Third) of Restitution § 65 'change of position' principle. The Third DCA affirmed the constructive trust but reversed the partial retention, holding the change-of-position defense was waived because unpleaded and, in any event, unavailable to a recipient with notice of the facts underlying the restitution claim.

Key facts

  • Husband secretly transferred approximately $5 million in tenancy-by-the-entireties assets (cash, stocks, and three condominiums) to his longtime paramour without his wife's consent, in violation of a marital agreement and irrevocable trust.
  • After a bench trial, the trial court imposed a constructive trust on the transferred assets but allowed the recipient to retain three assets under the Restatement (Third) of Restitution § 65 'change of position' defense.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This is a useful roadmap for practitioners litigating recovery of tenancy-by-the-entireties assets dissipated by one spouse, confirming that the transferee carries a clear-and-convincing burden to show consent and that… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

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.