MARTIN I. VEINER, APPELLANT,
v.
JOYCE S. VEINER, 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 a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida District Court of Appeal addressed multiple cross-appeals concerning property division, child support, and attorney's fees. The court held that awarding a special equity without specifying the property to which it attached was error, but found the trial court's factual determinations regarding jointly-held securities and child support were supported by the record.
The court held that awarding a special equity without specifying the res and without record support showing contribution to the res constitutes error. The court affirmed the trial court's determinations regarding jointly-held securities and child support as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record. The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a final judgment on attorney's fees after an appeal on that issue was pending before the appellate court.
[1] An award of a special equity in a spouse's assets is erroneous if the specific property to which the equity attaches is not identified and the record does not support a c…
[2] Appellate courts will not reverse a trial court's findings of fact in disputed issues when there is substantial support for the findings in the record.
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 allowance of a special equity in the assets of the husband without specifying the res and without support in the record showing a contribution to the res is error”
Establishes the governing legal standard that special equities in property must be specific and supported by evidence of contribution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin and Joyce Veiner were involved in a bitterly contested dissolution of marriage proceeding. The trial court awarded the wife a special equity in…
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
These appeals all arise out of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband, Martin I. Veiner, urges error in the final judgment in that the judgment awarded the wife, Joyce S. Vein-er, a special equity without specifying the property of the husband to which the equity attached. The former wife has appealed the judgment claiming error upon the court’s failure to award to her one-half of certain securities which were jointly held by the husband and wife prior to the dissolution. In addition, the wife urges that the award of $100 per week for support of the three children was an abuse of discretion. The husband has brought two interlocutory appeals, the first from the order allowing attorney’s fees and the second from a judgment awarded to the wife’s attorneys for the amount of the attorneys’ fees.
This case was bitterly contested between the parties with regard to all property matters. It is clear that the trial judge was trying to do equity between the parties. Nevertheless, we must hold, under the established law, that the allowance of a special equity in the assets of the husband without specifying the res and without support in the record showing a contribution to the res is error. See Elliott v. Elliott, 343 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Rey v. Rey, 279 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
The wife’s cross-appeals on the failure of the court to award her one-half ownership in certain jointly-held securities and her complaint that it was an abuse of discretion to award support of $100 per week for child support are not supported by the record. The judgments made by the trial court in the determination of disputed issues of fact will not be reversed by an appellate court where there is substantial support in the record for the finding of the trial court. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); and Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976).
The husband’s interlocutory appeals from the judgment awarding a $12,-000 attorneys’ fee to the wife’s attorneys point out that the judgment was entered after the husband had lodged his appeal in this court from the order allowing the fee. As held by the Supreme Court of Florida in De La Portilla v. De La Portilla, 304 So. 2d 116 (Fla.1974):
“It has long been held that where an appeal is duly taken, whether with or without supersedeas, jurisdiction of the cause is transferred to the appellate court, thereby depriving the trial court of the power to finally dispose of the cause by dismissal or otherwise. Willey v. W. J. Hoggson Corporation, supra [89 Fla. 446, 105 So. 126]; Moody v. Volusia County, supra [90 Fla. 864, 107 So. 185].”
Therefore, it was error for the trial court to enter the final judgment and proceed to enforce that judgment while an appeal challenging the amount of attorney’s fee was before this court. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed.
The husband’s interlocutory appeal challenging the amount of the attorneys’ fee does not present error on this record.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…v. Phillips, 181 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965) (trial court had jurisdiction to issue an alias summons, since this action did not encroach upon the appellate court’s jurisdiction to determine the validity of a prior summons), with Veiner v. Veiner, 364 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (where appeal challenges order allowing attorneys’ fee, trial court is without jurisdiction to enter judgment on order); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (trial court is without jurisdiction to enter post-appeal orde…
-
Murphy v. Murphy, 378 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ce of his invocation of the certiorari jurisdiction of the supreme court, pursuant to Fla.R. App.P. 9.120(b). This was error. While the lower court did no have power to enter the order while the case was pending in this court, see Veiner v. Veiner, 364 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), it reacquired jurisdiction over the cause upon the issuance of our mandate. See Meneses v. State, 372 So. 2d 1152, 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 31 (1978). No supersedeas bond had ever been posted in th…
-
Veiner v. Veiner, 459 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…er husband appealed the special equity award to this court and appellant herein cross-appealed the denial of alimony, the amount of child support, and the award of certain jointly held property to the husband. This court’s opinion, Veiner v. Veiner, 364 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (Veiner I), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 77 (Fla.1979), remanded that part of the judgment which awarded the special equity to the wife, stating that it was error to award a special equity without specifying the res or showing her con…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Willey v. W. J. Hoggson Corp., 89 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1925)
- Shuron Hester v. State, 312 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Emil Rossodivita v. The King's Surf Ltd., 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Steinhauer v. Lossie S. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- DE LA Portilla v. DE LA Portilla, 304 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1974)
- REY v. REY, 279 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Moody v. Volusia Cnty., 90 Fla. 864 (Fla. 1925)
- Farmers Bank & Tr. Co. v. Power, 90 Fla. 867 (Fla. 1925)