ELEANOR MAY MCANDREWS ARCHIBALD, APPELLANT,
v.
MATTHEW PIERCE ARCHIBALD, 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.
Wife appeals from a final judgment dissolving her marriage, challenging the trial court's decision not to award her a special equity in a hotel property in Jamaica held by her husband. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding that the wife had no special equity claim in the husband's current holdings.
The court affirmed the trial judge's finding that the wife had no special equity in the husband's present hotel holdings. The presumption of correctness afforded to trial court findings of fact, combined with the trial judge's superior position to make equitable distributions of marital assets, supported the judgment.
[1] A trial court's findings of fact in a dissolution of marriage proceeding are presumed correct on appeal.
[2] An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding factual determinations in a dissolution of marriage case.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although we might have reached a different result, the findings of the trial judge comes to us with a presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applied to factual findings by the trial court in divorce cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married in 1956 and commingled funds to acquire several hotels in Jamaica and Europe during the marriage. The husband acquired a hote…
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 Special Equity In Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the wife from a final judgment dissolving a marriage. The final judgment awarded her $50,000.00 in lump sum alimony and $750.00 per month in permanent alimony. The only point on appeal is that the court erred in not awarding her a special equity in an interest the husband held in a hotel located in Jamaica, B.W.I.
In the final judgment under review, the trial judge made the following finding.
“3. The Court finds that since the inception of the marriage in 1956, the funds of the parties were intermingled in the acquisition of several hotels in Jamaica and Europe. The acquisition of the sole remaining Hotel owned by the Husband; however, did not require any funding. The same was acquired by the Husband with no cash investment. That upon the sale of Montego Hotel, the proceeds of sale were ultimately divided between the parties at their final separation in 1972. “The Court finds that the Wife after the separation from the Husband in 1972, has no special equity in the Husband’s present holdings.. .. ”
Although we might have reached a different result, the findings of the trial judge comes to us with a presumption of correctness. Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We are not permitted to substitute our judgment as to the facts for his. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Monzon v. Monzon, 349 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Koken v. Neubauer, 374 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). He is in the best position to make an equitable distribution of any assets acquired during the marriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Examining the record in light of these principles, we find no error in the final judgment of dissolution under review; therefore, the same is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Acosta v. Acosta, 402 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); McDonald v. McDonald, 368 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1979); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Archibald v. Archibald, 390 So. 2d 1213 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Farrington v. Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Koken v. Neubauer, 374 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Monzon v. Monzon, 349 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)