CLYDE BIRD, APPELLANT,
v.
GLADYS BIRD, 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 trial court's final order in a dissolution of marriage case was reversed as to property distribution in Ecuador because it lacked competent and substantial evidence and the court failed to reserve jurisdiction over property rights.
A trial court's property distribution order in a dissolution proceeding must be supported by competent and substantial evidence, and the court must reserve jurisdiction to determine property rights.
[1] A trial court must reserve jurisdiction to determine property rights in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, and property distribution orders must be supported by compet…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the trial court failed to reserve jurisdiction to determine property rights”
The court identified the trial court's failure to reserve jurisdiction as a procedural defect in the dissolution order.
The parties were married for five years and sought dissolution. The trial court entered a final order determining custody, support, and property distr…
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 Property Distribution cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
The subject of this appeal is the propriety of the trial court’s final order determining custody, support and property distribution entered in proceedings to dissolve the parties’ five-year marriage. It appears that the trial court failed to reserve jurisdiction to determine property rights, Covin v. Covin, 403 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Mason v. Mason, 371 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); however, the wife maintains that the trial court’s order is supported by an oral property settlement agreement made by the parties in open court. Because the record fails to reflect the existence of such an agreement through written stipulation, testimonial transcript or otherwise, the appellate court cannot consider it as a basis for review. Arnold v. Arnold, 292 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Heredia, 247 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
Having carefully considered the pleadings, transcripts and other documents contained in the record, we find that the lack of competent and substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order constitutes reversible error. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 360 So. 2d 1250 (Fla.1978).
Finding that the remaining points lack merit, we reverse as to that portion of the order relating to the property located in Ecuador.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. Coopervision, Inc., 661 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…ot part of the record, we are unable to determine its nature or to assess its probative value. Moreover, there is no indication in the record that this document was ever introduced into evidence for the trial court’s consideration. See Bird v. Bird, 436 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Hillsborough County Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Public Employees Relations Comm’n, 424 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).…
-
Adelman v. Laurence Adelman, 543 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…rty settlement agreement. Finding no record support for the awards,1 see Barfield v. Barfield, 472 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (where there was no factual basis for the trial court’s finding, cause remanded for evidentiary hearing); Bird v. Bird, 436 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (where record does not reflect existence of oral property settlement agreement through written stipulation, testimonial transcript or otherwise, court may not consider it as a basis for review), we reverse the property, alimony an…
-
Haskew v. Haskew, 448 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…. Prior to entry of the court’s July 6th order, the husband had voluntarily made monthly payments. However, this did not constitute, nor did the trial court find, a pre-July 1st child support agreement between the husband and wife. Cf. Bird v. Bird, 436 So. 2d 981 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); contra Kramer v. Kramer, 26 Md.App. 620, 339 A. 2d 328 (1975). Since the trial court entered its child support order after section 743.07’s effective date, the former husband’s legal obligation to provide child support terminated…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Mason v. Mason, 371 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Covin v. Covin, 403 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Arnold v. Arnold, 292 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Indus. Supplies v. Heredia, 247 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)