JOHN L. ATWATER, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA M. ATWATER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Husband appealed a dissolution of marriage judgment that denied his claim for a special equity in the marital home based on non-marital contributions. The appeal became moot when husband purchased the wife's interest in the property after the appeal was filed, and the court dismissed the appeal as moot.
The appeal is dismissed as moot because the sale of the property effectively disposes of all issues on appeal. The husband cannot assert a special equity in the funds paid to the wife because the sale resulted from arm's-length negotiations and the husband agreed to the purchase without any reservation of rights.
[1] An appeal of a judgment divests the trial court of jurisdiction to enforce its orders regarding the subject matter of the appeal.
[2] A party's voluntary purchase of the opposing party's interest in property, after filing an appeal challenging a judgment related to that property, renders the appeal moot…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The appeal of the judgment in this instance precluded enforcement of the court's order. Unlike a money judgment which could be enforced by levy and sale of property seized pursuant to the levy, sale of the property in question here could only be enforced by application to the court.”
Distinguishes this case from Ronette Communications and explains why the sale was voluntary, not involuntary, despite the court order to sell.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHusband and wife took title to the marital home as tenants by the entireties. Husband claimed he contributed funds from a source outside the marital r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Involuntary Payment cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, F.D., Jr., Judge,
Retired.
This is an appeal from a judgment of dissolution of marriage which denied the appellant/husband’s claim for a special equity in the marital home. He contends that he contributed funds from a source outside of the marital relationship and, pursuant to Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976), he is entitled to a special equity because the wife has not proved a gift was intended when title was taken to the property as tenants by the entireties.
Subsequent to the institution of this appeal, the husband purchased the wife’s interest in the property. The wife has now moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the issue of the special equity was moot.
The husband characterizes his purchase of the wife’s interest in the real property as tantamount to the payment of a judgment on appeal, and cites this court’s opinion in Ronette Communications Corp. v. Lopez, 475 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In that case, this court held that an appellant does not lose its right to an appeal when it involuntarily paid a judgment after execution to avoid a levy on its property. The husband argues that he was under a court order to place the property on the market for sale therefore his purchase of the property was involuntary.
This argument is without merit. The appeal of the judgment in this instance precluded enforcement of the court’s order. Unlike a money judgment which could be enforced by levy and sale of property seized pursuant to the levy, sale of the property in question here could only be enforced by application to the court. This remedy was no longer available because the trial court lost jurisdiction when the notice of appeal was filed.
The husband argues that his special equity should attach to the funds which he paid to the wife for her interest in the property. We cannot accept this position. The sale was the result of arms-length negotiations between them to buy or sell their respective interests. The husband agreed to buy the wife’s interest for a specific sum, without any sort of reservation of rights. He cannot now complain that he made a bad bargain.
Because the sale of the property effectively disposes of all issues on appeal, the appeal is DISMISSED.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Ronette Commc'ns Corp. v. Pasquale Lopez, 475 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)