JULIO CESAR GRANDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANA GRANDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the husband challenges the trial court’s “special equity” award to the wife of his one-half interest in the marital condominium.
Although the award to the wife of the husband’s half-interest in the marital home was mislabeled a “special equity,” the record reflects that such provision can be upheld as equitably appropriate under the circumstances despite its mistaken nomenclature. Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); McCall v. McCall, 386 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); see Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla.1980). Finding that a “reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial judge,” Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1984), we conclude that the trial judge, who was in a better position to determine the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, did not abuse his discretion, and we affirm the award of the husband’s interest in the marital domicile as an appropriate lump sum alimony award.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glassalum Eng'g Corp. v. 392208 Ontario Ltd., 487 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…20(e), a trial court no longer has “inherent power to dismiss a cause for failure to prosecute where there is activity of record within one year prior to the order of dismissal,” Rivera v. A.M.I.F., Inc., 417 So. 2d 304, 304; see Lanahan v. Lentini, 457 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); American Salvage and Jobbing Company, Inc. v. Salomon, 367 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), we unhesitatingly reverse the order [*88] of dismissal entered below and remand the cause for further proceedings.1 We believe a few more…
-
Veiner v. Veiner, 459 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ent. It is clear that if this case were coming before us for the first time, we could acknowledge that the special equity award was an error but still uphold the trial court by finding that it was really an equitable distribution, Granda v. Granda, 457 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), or lump sum alimony, Fell v. Fell, 421 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We would not burden the trial court with a remand merely for a change in nomenclature. Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). This court had that…
-
Feldman v. Renault Motors, 550 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…he court’s dismissal. The law is clear that an action may not be dismissed for lack of prosecution when the period of inactivity is less than the one year provided for in Rule 1.420(e) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Lanahan v. Lentini, 457 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Rivera v. A.M.I.F., Inc., 417 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The facts of this case reflect that it was equally inappropriate for the trial court to dismiss this action for the failure to attend the July 26, 1988, hearing. See G…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)
- Vandergriff v. Wallyce V. Vandergriff, 456 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1984)
- Roffe v. Moises Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- McCALL v. McCALL, 386 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)