SYLVIA G. PORCARO, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
RAYMOND D. PORCARO, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
In a dissolution of marriage, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of $400 monthly alimony and denial of sole home ownership to the ex-wife, but reversed the award to her of one-half interests in corporate assets (automobile proceeds and promissory note) that belonged to a non-party corporation, requiring reconsideration of the overall distribution plan on remand.
A trial court may not award a spouse one-half interests in assets belonging to a corporation that is not a party to the dissolution suit, and must reconsider the overall distribution plan when such improper awards are removed.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage, a trial court may not award a spouse an interest in assets belonging to a corporation that is not a party to the suit, and must reconsider t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded the ex-wife $400 per month permanent alimony, denied her sole ownership of the marital home, and…
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 Corporate Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.
In this dissolution of marriage suit the ex-wife appeals from certain portions of the final judgment of dissolution. She contends that there was an abuse of discretion in the award to her of $400 per month permanent alimony and in the failure to award to her sole ownership of the jointly owned marital home. We disagree. We do not conclude from the record on appeal that there was an abuse of discretion in the fashioning of the above remedies as parts of the overall plan of distribution which included the award of corporate assets to the wife as referred to below.
We agree with the husband’s contention on cross-appeal that the trial court erred in awarding to the wife a one-half interest in the proceeds from the sale of an automobile and a one-half interest in a particular promissory note. The record shows that the automobile and the note were assets of a corporation which was not a party to this suit. See Keller v. Keller, 521 So. 2d 273, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Noe v. Noe, 431 So. 2d 657, 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Since the overall plan of distribution presumably would not have been the same without the award to the wife of those one-half interests, the trial court, on remand, should reconsider, and may revise, that plan with or without further proceedings as deemed appropriate in the exercise of the trial court’s sound discretion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Keller v. Keller, 521 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- NOE v. NOE, 431 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)