ANNA DORIS LABARRE, APPELLANT,
v.
PETER JOHN LABARRE, 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 by ordering the sale of a marital business when neither party requested partition of the asset.
The parties purchased and operated a business during their marriage, and the trial court found special equities for each party. The court then ordered…
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.
OTT, Acting Chief Judge.
During the brief marriage of the parties they purchased a business which they operated by their joint efforts and under a joint license. The trial court found upon substantial evidence that appellant has a special equity in the business to the extent of $10,000, and that appellee has a special equity therein to the extent of $5,000. We find no error in those findings.
However, in an effort to bring the litigation between the parties to an early end, the court then provided in its final judgment that the business should be sold, that appellant should receive the first $10,000 of the net proceeds, that appellee should receive the next $5,000, and that they divide any excess equally.
While we share the concern of the trial court that the parties put behind them as quickly as possible the financial repercussions of the failure of their marriage, we must reverse that portion of the judgment ordering the sale of the business. Neither party had requested the partition of any marital assets, nor did they stipulate to such at trial. That being the case, the order exceeded the authority of the court. Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 345 So. 2d 819 (Fla.4th DCA 1977); Niemann v. Niemann, 294 So. 2d 415 (Fla.4th DCA 1974), writ discharged 312 So. 2d 733 (Fla.1975).
We have examined appellant’s other assignments of error and find them to be groundless. The judgment is reversed insofar as it orders the sale of the business and the case is remanded to the court below with instructions to modify the judgment so as to merely grant the special equities already found. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. Let the parties bear their own costs on this appeal.
RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milio v. Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 668 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…urisdiction to try the charging lien. It is fundamental that a stipulation not agreed to by a party in open court, or otherwise submitted by the party to be charged in writing cannot properly be part of a judgment. See generally, Labarre v. Labarre, 382 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), citing Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 345 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and Niemann v. Niemann, 294 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), writ discharged, 312 So. 2d 733 (Fla.1975). The finality of a judgment occurs when no appeal is taken.…
-
Notarianni v. Notarianni, 584 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…CURIAM. We reverse the final judgment of dissolution of marriage to the extent it ordered the partition. Partition was not pleaded, stipulated to, or tried by consent. See Ellis v. Ellis, 542 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Labarre v. Labarre, 382 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). On remand, the issue of attorney’s fees should be considered in light of Smith v. Smith, 495 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). LEHAN, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Ellis v. Ellis, 542 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…at oral argument was done to provide the wife additional funds for maintenance and repairs on the home. We agree the court could not order the sale of the marital home without the filing of a pleading requesting that relief. See Labarre v. Labarre, 382 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The trial court, however, apparently misunderstood that it could order the termination of the wife’s exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home without a petition for sale of the home. The court never retreated from its find…
Authorities Cited
- Niemann v. Niemann, 294 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Maxwell G. Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 345 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Niemann v. Niemann, 312 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1975)