BARBARA IMPELLITIER, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH IMPELLITIER, 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 erred in ordering partition of personal property without proper pleadings, but affirmed other provisions of the final judgment.
Following a dissolution of marriage, the trial court entered a final judgment partitioning marital property and retaining jurisdiction. The wife appea…
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 Retention Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
The final judgment entered in this case, among other things, dissolved the marriage of the parties, granted custody of a child to the wife, awarded the wife child support, and granted the husband’s prayer for partition of the jointly owned marital domicile and personal property therein, but deferred “a specific order thereon until a motion so requesting is filed by either party hereto.”
Appellant attacks the following features of the final judgment: 1) the granting of appellee’s prayer for partition; 2) the failure to award possession of the marital home to appellant and the child, 3) the failure to require the appellee to pay for medical insurance for the child, and 4) the provision of the judgment retaining jurisdiction to issue “any further order as equity may deem just.”
We have examined each of the challenged provisions closely. The granting of partition of the marital home was supported by adequate pleadings in appellee’s complaint. However, as appellee candidly admitted, the partition as to the personal property had no support in the pleadings.
The other provisions of the judgment are discretionary calls by the trial judge and do not require our interference. Should the trial judge attempt to exercise inappropriate jurisdiction under the retention provision of the judgment, there will be time enough to limit such exercise to matters allowable by law.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects except the provision thereof providing for partition as to the personal oroperty of the parties. That provision is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and remanded for further proceedings.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. Young, 507 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…the marital home stems from the absence in the husband’s petition of allegations, conforming to the requirements of Chapter 64, seeking that form of remedy. Cyphers v. Cyphers, 373 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Impellitier v. Impellitier, 371 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). A generally pleaded request for equitable distribution of marital property, as is found here, will not sustain the remedy of partition. Cyphers. Partition ... whether by separate suit under [Chapter 64], or in a divorce suit co…