ROBIN ASHOURIAN, A/K/A ROBIN ASH, WIFE, APPELLANT,
v.
MAHMOUD ASHOURIAN, A/K/A MIKE ASH, HUSBAND, 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 a divorce proceeding, the wife appealed the trial court's order striking corporations from her counterpetition, where she claimed a special equity in her husband's business interests based on her financial contributions and unpaid labor. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the wife's claims were against the husband's stock ownership, not the corporations themselves, and therefore joinder of the corporations was unnecessary.
The trial court did not err in striking the corporations because the wife's claims alleged a special equity in the husband's stock ownership in the corporations, not a cause of action against the corporations themselves. The trial court may award a wife an equitable portion of the husband's corporate stock without joinder of the corporation, and may prevent the husband's disposal of assets under his exclusive control without necessitating joinder of the various corporations.
[1] A trial court may award a spouse a special equity in the other spouse's corporate stock, even if the corporation is not a party to the dissolution proceeding.
[2] A spouse seeking a special equity in corporate stock does not need to join the corporation as a party to the dissolution proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“It is true that the trial court has no power to order a transfer of corporate assets without joinder of the corporation. Feldman v. Feldman, 390 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Couture v. Couture, 307 So.2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Nevertheless, even when the corporation is not a party to the dissolution proceeding, the trial court can award the wife a special equity in the husband's interest in the corporation by awarding the wife an equitable portion of the husband's corporate stock.”
Establishes that joinder is not required when claims are against the husband's stock interest rather than corporate property directly.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife alleged she had contributed funds unconnected with the marriage and substantial unpaid time and effort to the husband's various business ente…
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 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
The wife in this dissolution proceeding appeals an order striking from her counter-petition for dissolution several corporations joined as defendants. Finding no error in the trial court’s order, we affirm.
In her counterpetition, the wife alleges a special equity in the husband’s various business enterprises on the grounds that she contributed funds from a source unconnected with the marriage, and also contributed much time and effort in running these businesses for which she was never paid any remuneration. She also sought injunctive relief, requesting the court to enjoin the corporations from selling, transferring or disposing of any assets in excess of $100 without first accounting to her, and securing her approval.
It is true that the trial court has no power to order a transfer of corporate assets without joinder of the corporation. Feldman v. Feldman, 390 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Couture v. Couture, 307 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Nevertheless, even when the corporation is not a party to the dissolution proceeding, the trial court can award the wife a special equity in the husband’s interest in the corporation by awarding the wife an equitable portion of the husband’s corporate stock. Good v. Good, 458 So. 2d 839, 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Feldman v. Feldman, 390 So. 2d at 1232.
The wife’s counterpetition does not allege a special equity in any corporate property1 but merely alleges a claim against the husband’s stock ownership in the corporations. Lack of jurisdiction over the corporations would not prevent the trial court from awarding the wife the husband’s interest in them if justified. Further, the trial court may preclude the husband's disposal of assets over which he exercises exclusive control, without the necessity of joining the various corporations as parties.
The cases relied upon by the wife for joinder are distinguishable. In Rosenberg v. North American Biologicals, Inc., 413 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), the wife alleged in her complaint that the corporate defendant had illegally watered down the wife’s stock ownership in the defendant corporation in favor of the husband. If these allegations were true, the wife was entitled to relief against the corporation. Contrarily, the wife’s counterpetition in this case states no cause of action against the corporations, nor does it seek specific relief against them. In Hoecker v. Hoecker, 426 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), unlike the case before us, the husband owned all of the stock of the respondent corporation and the evidence showed a complete blending of the personal and corporate property, so much so that the husband testified that he and the corporation were one and the same. Here, the trial judge correctly determined that the wife’s general allegations of a special equity in the husband’s business enterprises do not justify joinder of the corporations.
The trial court’s order finding that these corporations were improperly joined is AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, C.J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur. . Although one paragraph of the counterpetition alleges that the wife had an interest in an automobile titled in the name of one of the husband’s corporations, this particular automobile has since been sold and was replaced with an automobile titled in the husband’s name. Even if the car had remained titled in the corporate name, the court could order the husband to provide the wife with equivalent transportation if justified without necessitating joinder of the corporation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keller v. Keller, 521 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…owned 87% of the stock, not by the appellant himself. This corporation was not joined as a party and, thus, the trial court had no power to transfer this corporate asset. Feldman, 390 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). See also Ashourian v. Ashourian, 483 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Noe v. Noe, 431 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We find no abuse of discretion in the award of permanent, periodic alimony. See Laman v. Laman, 490 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 500 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1986); Neumann v.…
-
Austin v. Austin, 120 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…sets without joinder of the corporation. See Mathes v. Mathes, 91 So. 3d 207, 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 617 So. 2d 327, 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Keller v. Keller, 521 So. 2d 273, 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Ashourian v. Ashourian, 483 So. 2d 486, 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). On the other hand, a trial court has the power to value and distribute corporate stock determined to be a marital asset, Mathes, 91 So. 3d at 208, and “may preclude the husband’s disposal of assets over which he exercises e…
-
Buchanan v. Buchanan, 225 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…ompany continue to pay Wife’s salary, Husband’s company has not been joined as a party to the dissolution action, and “the trial court has no power to order a transfer of corporate assets without joinder of the corporation.” Ashourian. v. Ashourian, 483 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Minsky v. Minsky, 779 So. 2d 375, 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that in dissolution action, “the trial court does not have jurisdiction. to adjudicate property rights of nonparties”). While the trial court has the aut…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- Rosenberg v. N. Am. Biologicals, Inc., 413 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Hoecker v. Hoecker, 426 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Good v. Good, 458 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Borst v. Borst, 458 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)