ARMANDO LOPEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSA LOPEZ, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed and remanded a dissolution judgment because the trial court failed to adjudicate the parties' rights in personal property acquired during the marriage, though it affirmed the alimony and home-use awards.
A trial court in a dissolution action must adjudicate all property rights raised by the parties, as the final judgment settles all such rights and bars further action.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage action, when property rights are raised by either party, the trial court must adjudicate all such rights in its final judgment, as the judgme…
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“In a dissolution action, when the question of property rights is raised, the court must determine the issue since its final judgment of dissolution settles all property rights of the parties and bars further action to determine such rights.”
Court citing Craig v. Craig to establish the mandatory duty to adjudicate all property rights in dissolution proceedings.
Husband appealed a dissolution judgment that awarded wife lump sum alimony, a special equity in the marital home, exclusive use and occupancy pending …
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 Adjudication Of Property Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant husband seeks review of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which awarded the wife (1) lump sum alimony, (2) a special equity in the marital home and (3) exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home pending its sale, and which further required both parties to share in the mortgage payments.
Appellant has raised several points on appeal, only one of which has merit. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to adjudicate the rights of the parties as to the personal property acquired by the parties during the marriage, as requested by the parties in the petition and counter-petition for dissolution of marriage. We agree that reversible error has been demonstrated in this respect. “In a dissolution action, when the question of property rights is raised, the court must determine the issue since its final judgment of dissolution settles all property rights of the parties and bars further action to determine such rights.” Craig v. Craig, 404 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the cause is remanded for a determination of the property rights of the parties.
The final judgment is in all other respects affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gallant v. Gallant, 468 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…pecific order and on an inventory submitted by the husband. The judgment makes no other disposition of personal property. On remand the trial court should determine the rights of the parties as to any remaining personal property. See Lopez v. Lopez, 447 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The final issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to retain jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees. The trial court stated at the final hearing that evidence as to attorney’s fees must be presented at the hea…
-
Welton v. Welton, 267 So. 3d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
-
Levie v. Levie, 463 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…m the date of dissolution until the sale of the marital home, Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981); to a determination of ownership of specific items of non-marital property, see Lopez v. Lopez, 447 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); and, absent evidence demonstrating necessity, to reversal of the requirement that he pay for the child’s attendance at private school. We remand with directions to the trial court to: award the husband a special equity in the m…
Authorities Cited
- Craig v. Craig, 404 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)