RIVERA
v.
RIVERA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2019-05-29
No. 3D18-1338
Assigns, Foret, Laborde, Reasons, Stoker
274 So. 3d 491 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2019)

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.


Holding

When neither party seeks partition of the marital home, case law establishing requirements for partition judgments (such as deadlines for refinancing or sale) is inapplicable to the trial court's decision.


Headnotes

[1] In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, case law governing partition of the marital home is inapplicable when neither party seeks partition of the property.

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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, neither party sought partition of the marital home. The former husband appealed, relying on jurisprudence gov…

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.

Opinion of the Court

MILLER, J.

As neither party sought to partition the marital home, the body of jurisprudence relied upon by the former husband in furtherance of appellate relief is inapposite. Accordingly, we find no error and affirm. See Gulledge v. Gulledge, 82 So. 3d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (narrowly holding that in partition cases “the trial court err[s] by failing to include a deadline for the refinancing or sale of the marital home”); Sullivan v. Sullivan, 363 So. 2d 393, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (discussing that in partition cases “the judgment must fix a reasonable deadline by which the sale must take place”); see also Smilack v. Smilack, 858 So. 2d 1072, 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“[A] trial court may enforce the provisions of a final judgment through any appropriate remedy.”) (citing Montanez v. Montanez, 697 So. 2d 184, 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw