WALTER R. WEEKS, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLOTTE L. WEEKS, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage case, the husband appealed the trial court's division of property, particularly challenging an order requiring him to transfer all assets of a jointly-owned dress shop corporation to his wife. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order properly required the husband to transfer assets within his possession or control to the wife as principal stockholder, without improperly disposing of corporate assets.
The trial court's order was proper. The court construed the judgment as requiring the husband to transfer to the wife, as principal stockholder and manager, only those corporate assets within his possession or control, not as improperly disposing of all corporate assets or conveying title without regard to the third stockholder's interests.
[1] A trial court may order a party to transfer corporate assets in a dissolution of marriage proceeding if the order is construed as a requirement to transfer assets in that…
[2] A trial court's division of property in a dissolution of marriage proceeding will be affirmed if the judge properly exercised discretion based upon the evidence presented…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 judge properly exercised his discretion based upon the evidence presented”
Establishes the standard of review and the court's holding that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in dividing the property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband and wife each owned 49 shares of stock in a dress shop corporation formed in 1964; the husband's sister owned the remaining two shares. Th…
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 Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s division of property in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. Appellant raises five points on appeal and we affirm on all five points, finding that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion based upon the evidence presented. One point warrants discussion.
Appellant and appellee each owned forty-nine shares of stock of a corporation they formed in 1964, to operate a dress shop. Appellant’s sister owned two shares of stock. Appellee managed and operated the dress shop. Appellant’s forty-nine shares were awarded to the wife, and appellant does not contest that award. Appellant does contest that portion of the final judgment which provided:
WALTER R. WEEKS shall immediately transfer to CHARLOTTE L. WEEKS all of the assets of said dress shop, including all bank accounts and monies. All the monies in Tres Chic, Inc. accounts shall immediately be transferred to CHARLOTTE L. WEEKS, or arrangements should be made with the bank to void his signatory power on said accounts and establish signatory power in CHARLOTTE L. WEEKS.
Appellant argues that since the trial court did not have jurisdiction of the corporation or appellant’s sister, the third stockholder, it had no power to order the assets of the corporation transferred to appellee. Feldman v. Feldman, 390 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Couture v. Couture, 307 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We agree with the principle of law for which Feld-man and Couture are cited, however, after a careful reading of the above-quoted provision of the final judgment, we conclude that it does not attempt to improperly dispose of assets of the corporation. We construe that provision of the final judgment as simply a requirement for appellant to transfer to appellee, as the principal stockholder and manager of the corporation, whatever assets of the corporation that might be in his possession or control. We. do not construe the provision as conveying title to the assets to appellee, but merely effectuating a physical transfer to appellee as principal stockholder for the benefit of the corporation.
We, therefore, affirm the judgment below.
SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Feldman v. Zena K. Feldman, 390 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Couture v. Couture, 307 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)