DIETER K. PAWLIK, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTINE M. PAWLIK, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage case, the Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's property division judgment in most respects but reversed the portion attempting to partition real property located in Illinois, holding that Florida courts lack authority to partition property outside the state.
The trial court had no authority to order partition of lands located outside Florida. The judgment is affirmed regarding the property division awards, as the record does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion, but reversed regarding the attempted partition of Illinois property. The case is remanded for the trial court to redetermine all provisions of the judgment as necessary to maintain equitable distribution.
[1] A trial court cannot partition real estate located outside of its state.
[2] A trial court may redetermine all provisions of a final judgment on remand when a portion of the judgment is reversed and the reversal may disrupt the overall equitable d…
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“In no event could the lower court effect a partition of lands outside this state.”
Establishes the core holding that Florida courts lack authority to partition real property located outside Florida's borders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband and wife were married for 22 years. The trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution that included an order for the sale of 37 acre…
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 Partition Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of a 22 year marriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The husband voluntarily did not appear at the non-jury trial. He was, however, represented by counsel. As a result, the vast majority of the record consists of evidence presented by the wife. Although we might differ with the trial judge as to some of his awards, we cannot conclude that he abused his discretion based on the record presented to us. Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1985). Therefore, the judgment is affirmed, with the exception of an attempted disposition of the parties’ Illinois property.
The final judgment orders the sale of 37 acres of real property located in West Frankfort, Illinois, and a disproportionate division of the net proceeds of the sale. The effect of this provision is to attempt the partition of this real estate without proper pleadings or authority. Young v. Young, 507 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); O’Hara v. O’Hara, 327 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In no event could the lower court effect a partition of lands outside this state. Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). That portion of the final judgment ordering the sale of the Illinois property and the division of the proceeds of sale is reversed. We recognize that reversing one segment of the trial court’s plan of equitable distri-button can throw the overall scheme out of balance. On remand, therefore, the trial court is authorized to redetermine all provisions of the final judgment as it may deem necessary.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Viet HO v. State, 929 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…a defendant seeking a writ of habeas corpus ‘must adduce evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s order.’ ”) (quoting State ex rel. Smith v. Untreiner, 246 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)); Vallejo v. State, 545 So. 2d 506, 506 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (“The petition does not allege, nor does the record show that the relief requested would entitle the appellant to immediate release.”). Because the record does not contain a transcript of or information regarding Ho’s first…
-
Campbell v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 630 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…n of the trial court’s order addressing the parole revocation proceedings, and we remand with instructions to dismiss that claim without prejudice to the appellant’s right to file a habeas corpus petition in the appropriate court. See Bush v. State, 545 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We affirm on all other issues. ERVIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.…
-
Savage v. State, 662 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ver his case prior to trial, the trial court here properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a petition for habeas corpus filed by a prisoner being detained outside its territorial authority. § 79.09, Fla.Stat. (1993); Bush v. State, 545 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Finley v. State, 394 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The court finds that this appeal is appropriate for expedited disposition pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). Accordingly, the order is summarily affir…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Marcoux v. Marcoux, 464 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1985)
- Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- O'Hara v. O'Hara, 327 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Young v. Young, 507 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)