RENE JOSE AOUN, APPELLANT,
v.
JANE D. AOUN, 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 it lacked jurisdiction to award specific jewelry in a dissolution judgment when the petition did not seek such relief, and that the appellant was precluded from relief on child support issues due to untimeliness.
[1] A court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate rights to personal property in a dissolution proceeding if the petition does not seek such an adjudication.
[2] Parties may litigate issues of personal property rights in a separate lawsuit when those issues are not before the court in a marriage dissolution proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court awarded specific jewelry in a dissolution judgment and later found the husband in contempt for failure to deliver it. The husband also…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.530(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Where the Petition for Dissolution which was served upon defendant-husband, and upon which the case was tried in his absence, did not seek an adjudication of rights to personal property, the court was without jurisdiction to include in the final judgment an award of specific items of jewelry, and to find the husband in contempt, years later, for failure to deliver the jewelry to the former wife. Where the issue of rights to personal property is not before the court in the proceeding to dissolve a marriage, the parties are at liberty to litigate the matter in a separate lawsuit. Haas v. Haas, 421 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 277 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
Appellant claims, almost three years later, that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment which required that support for the minor child continue past the age of eighteen. No appeal was taken from the judgment.
A party seeking relief from judgment based on a mistake of law has two alternatives. He may file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b) within ten days after entry of the final judgment or file an appeal within thirty days. See Barrios v. Draper and Industrial Fire and Casualty Company, 423 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division of Administration, Department of Transportation, 315 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Keller v. Belcher, 256 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 280 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1973). Having failed to avail himself to either of the alternatives, appellant is precluded from relief on the claim that the child support arrear-age is excessive.1
The Final Judgment for Civil Contempt is reversed; the Final Money Judgment and Order on Husband’s Petition to Modify and Wife’s Motion to Enforce Final Judgment are affirmed.
. Appellant’s petition to modify the final judgment pursuant to Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1981) was granted, effective the date of the hearing, on a showing by appellant that the child had attained majority and was not dependent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stavros Moforis v. Moforis, 977 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…0, or by appellate review.” See also Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 445 (Fla.1990); Paladin Props. v. Family Inv. Enters., 952 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ramjit, 788 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Aoun v. Aoun, 428 So. 2d 707, 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Barrios v. Draper & Indus. Fire & Cas. Co., 423 So. 2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Div. of Admin., Dep’t of Transp., 315 So. 2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). In Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pe…
-
McLEAN v. McLEAN, 461 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…he litigation and bars any action thereafter brought by either party to determine the question of property rights. Accord Diejuste v. Davis, 400 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Simon v. Simon, 293 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). But see Aoun v. Aoun, 428 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Haas v. Haas, 421 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 277 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 287 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1973) (stating that where property rights are not in issue before a court in a dissolutio…
-
Sands v. Wooten, 439 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ggrieved parties-in-interest were obligated to file a timely motion for rehearing or motion to amend judgment, or to take an appeal within thirty days. Having failed to do either they are now precluded from setting aside the order. See Aoun v. Aoun, 428 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Barrios v. Draper, 423 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division of Administration, Department of Transportation, 315 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Keller v. Belcher, 256 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971),…
Authorities Cited
- Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division OF Administration, 315 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Keller v. Belcher, 256 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 277 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Chateloin v. Flanigan's Enters. Inc., 423 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Barrios v. Draper, 423 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Keller v. Belcher, 280 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1972)
- Sims v. Tampa Unif. Serv., Inc., 280 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1973)
- Haas v. Haas, 421 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)