PATSY P. WITTENSTEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
SHELDON WITTENSTEIN, 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.
Court reversed award of lump sum alimony consisting of wife's own one-half interest in marital residence, holding that lump sum alimony cannot be satisfied by awarding property already belonging to the recipient.
Lump sum alimony cannot be satisfied by awarding a spouse property that already belongs to that spouse.
[1] When marital property is titled in joint names, neither spouse acquires a special equity and the parties become tenants in common with equal interests; therefore, lump su…
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“If the wife is entitled to lump sum alimony then it may not be satisfied by giving her what is already hers.”
Court's statement of the legal error in awarding the wife's own property interest as lump sum alimony.
Patsy and Sheldon Wittenstein divorced. The trial court awarded Patsy lump sum alimony in the form of her own one-half interest in the marital residen…
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 Special Equity In Property cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Patsy Wittenstein appeals from a final judgment of dissolution questioning the award to her as lump sum alimony of her own one-half interest in the marital residence held by the parties as an estate by the entireties. The court in Billings v. Billings, 406 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) stated:
The marital domicile was titled in joint names. Neither party was deemed to have acquired a special equity in that property. Under familiar principles the parties became tenants in common with equal interests in the real property or the proceeds of its sale. Section 689.15, Florida Statutes (1979); Meridith v. Meridith, 366 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1978). The lower tribunal ordered the wife to sell her one-half interest to the husband for a fixed amount within a certain period of time. The proceeds are then characterized by the court as lump sum alimony to the wife. This was error. If the wife is entitled to lump sum alimony then it may not be satisfied by giving her what is already hers.
We reverse the provision dealing with lump sum alimony and affirm the final judgment in all other respects. On remand, the trial court should determine whether lump sum alimony is appropriate and if so, in what amount.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
COBB, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Meridith v. Meridith, 366 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1978)
- In re the Est. of Philip Siegel, 366 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1978)
- Billings v. Billings, 406 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)