ADRIAN L. LEONARD, APPELLANT,
v.
DORTHA A. LEONARD, 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 divorce case, the trial court awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony of $250/month and lump sum alimony consisting of the husband's interest in their Florida residence, while awarding the husband lump sum alimony in the wife's interest in Canadian property. The appellate court reversed the lump sum alimony awards for both properties because the husband's counterpetition failed to allege facts supporting an alimony award or pray for alimony relief, despite finding the trial court's overall equitable approach sound.
The court reversed the lump sum alimony awards for both the Florida residence and Canadian property because Adrian's counterpetition contained neither allegations supporting an alimony award nor a prayer for alimony. However, the court affirmed the award of permanent periodic alimony to Dortha because it was clearly justified by the record.
[1] A trial court cannot award alimony absent an allegation or prayer for alimony in the pleadings.
[2] In a dissolution judgment, awards to parties are generally interrelated, requiring reversal of the entire judgment if one award is reversed.
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“his answer and counterpetition contained neither an allegation upon which an award of alimony could be made nor any prayer for alimony”
Establishes the basis for reversing the lump sum alimony awards—lack of proper pleading requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdrian and Dortha Leonard were divorcing. The trial court awarded Dortha permanent periodic alimony of $250 per month. The court also awarded Dortha l…
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 Prayer For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
The final judgment of dissolution in this case awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony of $250 a month and lump sum alimony in the husband’s one-half interest in the parties’ Florida residence. It also awarded the husband lump sum alimony in the wife’s one-half interest in the parties’ Canadian real estate and made other dispositions which are not important here. The husband contends that the court abused its discretion in awarding the wife permanent periodic alimony. The wife cross-appeals on several grounds, including the claim that the court erred in awarding to the husband her interest in the Canadian property.
We must reverse the award of the interest in the Canadian property to the husband as lump sum alimony because his answer and counterpetition contained neither an allegation upon which an award of alimony could be made nor any prayer for alimony. Cooper v. Cooper, 406 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Under these circumstances we would ordinarily reverse and remand the entire judgment for further proceedings because in a judgment of dissolution the various awards to the parties are usually interrelated. E.g. Powers v. Powers, 409 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
However, since the award of periodic alimony to the wife is so clearly justified in this case, we will not disturb that portion of the judgment. Yet we do feel that because we must reverse the award of the wife’s interest in the Canadian property, we must also reverse the award to the wife of the husband’s interest in the Florida property. We cannot say that the judge would have awarded one had he not awarded the other. From a study of the record it is obvious that the court reached a well informed decision which was in the interests of both parties. The wife needs a home in Florida in which to live, and under the circumstances it was fair to award the husband the entire interest in the Canadian property. Despite this fact, the parties chose to bring their grievances to this court, and we are obligated to follow established legal principles. We are thus constrained to point out that in a dissolution proceeding a trial court is not authorized to make an “equitable division” of the parties’ property absent one of the vehicles legally recognized in marital disputes such as lump sum alimony or special equity. Powers v. Powers; Sangas v. Sangas, 407 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
We reverse the lump sum alimony awards of the Canadian property and the parties’ residence but affirm the balance of the judgment. We remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tronconi v. Tronconi, 466 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1985)…EHRLICH, Justice. We review a decision of a district court affirming a property distribution in a mari [*204] tal dissolution proceeding. Tronconi v. Tronconi, 425 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The decision conflicts with Leonard v. Leonard, 414 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and Powers v. Powers, 409 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution. Felicia and Francis Tronconi wed in 1955 in Connecticut. In 1981, their marriage…1 / 2
-
Hernandez v. Hernandez, 444 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…d granting the wife $250,000 as a special equity or an equitable distribution in “the fruits of the husband’s medical career.” 1 We also reverse the judgment insofar as it makes awards which were not sought by the pleadings. See Leonard v. Leonard, 414 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 424 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1983). The final judgment makes the following awards which find no support in the allegations of the wife’s counter-petition and which were not prayed for: (1) life insurance on the life of husban…
-
Abbe v. Marnon F. Abbe, 475 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1985)…r-petition. Without this request, the court held, absent allegations of need, or consent of the parties at trial, the specific prayer for lump sum alimony was considered necessary to provide adequate notice to the opposing party. Leonard v. Leonard, 414 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), review denied, 424 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1983); Sullivan v. Sullivan, 363 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 472 (Fla.1979). However, the court recognized that since our decision in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cooper v. Cooper, 406 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Powers v. Powers, 409 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Sangas v. Penelope Sangas, 407 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)