MALCOLM FREDERICK FELL, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUELLA F. FELL, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equitable Distribution Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in awarding his ex-wife his one-half interest in the marital home on the basis of special equity. Smith v. Smith, 418 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla.1980). Based on our review of the record, however, we find that the award was justified as lump sum alimony “to ensure an equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage .... ” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980). There was justification for distribution of this property to the wife and the husband’s economic status is not substantially endangered by it, given the concurrent award to him of sole ownership of other real property owned jointly by the parties. Canakaris. Since the provision can be upheld on alternative grounds, we see no purpose in returning the case to the trial court for a “change in nomenclature.” Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carroll v. Carroll, 471 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…court properly awarded the wife as lump sum alimony the marital home and furnishings, see Clarke v. Clarke, 443 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Besley v. Besley, 437 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1984); Fell v. Fell, 421 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Locke v. Locke, 413 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the car and a substantial cash award. We find, nonetheless, that the court erred in the distribution of property between the parties for the following reasons. First, an award…
-
Elga B. White v. Latrell White, 429 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…toward the purchase of the interest in Trans-Air. The order does not state whether the Trans-Air stock was awarded as lump sum alimony or as special equity. Under the facts of this case, the award can be upheld as lump sum alimony. See Fell v. Fell, 421 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and we affirm the trial court on this issue. On Point V, husband declares that he should not have to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the motion for rehearing raising meritorious issues. Some of the is…
-
Carrison v. Carrison, 486 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…st for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The trial court’s decision as to the marital residence was a reasonable exercise of the court’s discretion in fashioning an overall equitable distribution [*1367] of the marital properties. Fell v. Fell, 421 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Murphy v. Murphy, 475 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Similarly, given the substantially disparate financial positions of the parties, we discern no error in the trial court’s decision to award the wife attorney’s fees an…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)
- Roffe v. Moises Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Smith v. Smith, 418 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)