IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF FRANCES B. MEEK, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES MEEK, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a marriage dissolution case.
In the judgment the court awarded a one-quarter interest in appellee’s sailboat to appellant where there is neither a finding of a special equity in the sailboat nor any evidence to support such a finding had it been made. We reverse that award.
The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to the wife even though the appropriate pleadings do not seek such an award. We reverse that award. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.
SHARP, Judge,
dissenting in part.
In my view, the whole of this opinion should be affirmed pursuant to the dictates of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980) and Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1972). The trial court may have erred in failing to properly label the award of the one-quarter interest in the sailboat to the former wife. However, an erroneous label, where another theory would justify the award, merits an affirmance.1
In this case, the record supports the trial judge’s conclusion that both parties started and operated a taxi cab company, and the wife’s work efforts entitled her to a one-quarter ownership interest in the business.2 The evidence also clearly established in this case that the sailboat was purchased with funds from the company. Title was taken in the parties’ joint names and both signed the obligation for purchase. The downpayment and the monthly installment payments were paid out of the company’s business account.
The court found the parties did not intend the wife to have an ownership interest in the sailboat, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. However, since the boat was acquired by the funds and income of a business in which the trial court found the wife owned a one-quarter interest, it awarded her a proportionate one-quarter interest in the boat. There is logic and a factual basis for this award. It should be affirmed.
. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla.1980); Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1972).
. Good v. Good, 458 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (a court may award the wife a portion of the husband’s corporate stock); Feldman v. Feldman, 390 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980) (proper to order transfer of stock in business owned by husband to wife).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bull v. Bartley Bull, 584 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…9 (Fla.1984), it erred in awarding fees when the former husband had neither requested fees in a pleading nor given the former wife notice that fees would be at issue.1 Johnson v. Johnson, 346 So. 2d 591, 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Accord Meek v. Meek, 486 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Christie v. Casaday, 486 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Bob v. Bob, 312 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). REVERSED. SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur. . It is not essential for a prevailing party to request attorney’s fees when the…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1972)
- Feldman v. Zena K. Feldman, 390 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Good v. Good, 458 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Borst v. Borst, 458 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)