DAVID E. SCHROTT, APPELLANT,
v.
DIXIE J. SCHROTT, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its awards, but that the final judgment should be construed to retain jurisdiction over the distribution of personal property.
Husband appealed awards in a corrected final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The parties had stipulated that the court would retain jurisdiction …
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Husband appeals, contending the trial court erred in making certain awards in the corrected final judgment of dissolution of the parties’ marriage. We have examined the record and briefs of the parties and we agree with the wife that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the areas challenged by the husband, i.e., equitable distribution, permanent alimony, requirement for life insurance and attorney’s fees. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
We note, however, the parties stipulated that the court retain jurisdiction to order a distribution of their tangible personal property should they be unable to agree on a distribution. Apparently responding to their wishes, the trial court did not enter an order disposing of their personal property. However, the court overlooked including such a provision in the judgment. At oral argument counsel conceded the judgment should so provide.
Accordingly, we construe the corrected final judgment, filed March 16, 1990, as retaining jurisdiction to effectuate a distribution of the parties’ tangible personal property should the parties be unable to agree on an amicable distribution within a reasonable time. As construed, we affirm the corrected final judgment.
DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brock v. Conway Brock, 583 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…al, appealable order. We ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Apparently in response to that order, ap-pellee filed a “Motion to Allow Concurrent Jurisdiction,” citing Schrott v. Schrott, 570 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In that opinion, the court noted that the trial court had intended to retain jurisdiction to dispose of remaining personal property upon stipulation of the parties, but forgot to include such a provision in the final judgment. Th…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)