CATHY KELLNER, APPELLANT,
v.
PETER A. KELLNER, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding substantial competent evidence supported the division of marital property and the denial of rehabilitative alimony.
The parties were married for six years. The husband contributed over $100,000 from non-marital funds to jointly owned property, including a shopping c…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant poses two points for our consideration in an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution. The first point suggests error in awarding the husband 85% interest in realty which had been jointly owned. The second point complains of the denial of rehabilitative alimony.
The parties were married for six years. The wife holds a Master’s Degree in Library Science and currently earns approximately $10,000 per year. The parties jointly owned the marital residence and the Sunflower Shopping Center. The evidence reflects that the husband furnished over $100,000 from funds unrelated to the marriage. In addition, he obtained loans used in the shopping center, some of which ultimately were paid off by using other of his assets. The wife’s contribution to the property was minimal, particularly in view of her testimony that she took back from the parties’ joint savings account the $3,000 that she had put into the shopping center. The wife also testified that she never knew the title to the shopping center was in her name also until her lawyer told her when these proceedings commenced. The husband testified that no gift was ever intended, and the wife did not rebut that.
Our scrutiny of the record convinces us that there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s determination of the value of appellee’s special equity in the shopping center. In fact, it would appear the trial judge was generous in the determination of the wife’s interest. In addition, we find no error demonstrated in the refusal to award rehabilitative alimony to the wife.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Poppe v. Poppe, 412 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…n society. In the absence of a need for vocational or other training, she is not entitled to receive rehabilitative alimony. Mertz v. Mertz, 287 So. 2d 691 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); see Scott v. Scott, 408 So. 2d 1089 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Kellner v. Kellner, 388 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Mrs. Poppe received a half interest in the parties’ real and personal property and is self-supporting. Her husband is responsible for one son’s college expenses along with custody of the minor child. Since Mrs. Poppe is in a f…
-
Weiss v. Weiss, 390 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ubstantial competent evidence to sustain these findings. Consequently the trial court correctly concluded that the husband had a special equity in the [*1237] Boca Raton home. Kaylor v. Kaylor, 390 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Kellner v. Kellner, 388 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Aguiar v. Aguiar, 386 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla.1980). Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. BERANEK, HERSEY and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.…