ELLEN VADALA, N/K/A ELLEN WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS VADALA, 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.
The court held that the sale of the jointly held condominium and partition of proceeds, along with attorney's fees, were properly awarded, but rehabilitative alimony was not.
The wife appealed a final judgment of dissolution that ordered the sale and partition of a jointly held condominium and awarded the husband attorney's…
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 Tenants By The Entireties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The wife appealed the Final Judgment of Dissolution which ordered the sale and partition of proceeds from the parties’ jointly held condominium and awarded the husband attorneys fees and rehabilitative alimony. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the parties’ condominium, held by the parties as tenants by the entireties, should be sold and the proceeds partitioned between the parties. The trial court found that neither party had shown entitlement to a special equity in the condominium property and no reason has been presented for disturbing that finding. Further, the husband requested attorneys fees in the claim for partition of the property and therefore the trial court had authority to award attorneys fees and costs to the husband based on that claim. No abuse of discretion has been demonstrated from that award. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
As to the award of rehabilitative alimony to the husband, we reverse. No claim for rehabilitative alimony was made before the trial court and the husband’s testimony does not show a need or desire for assistance from the wife for the purpose of rehabilitation. The issue was not pled and not tried and therefore no award was merited. Cooper v. Cooper, 406 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Hines v. Hines, 494 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986); James v. James, 374 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., and McNulty, Joseph p., (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Summer L. Herring, Jr. v. Herring, 666 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…nd. We reject this suggestion. Appel-lee’s counter-petition contained no request for alimony, and the parties’ stipulation and agreement expressly waived alimony. Alimony cannot be awarded when the issue has not been pled or tried. Vadala v. Vadala, 556 So. 2d 438, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Hines v. Hines, 494 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Disposition of the issue raised in this appeal is controlled by this court’s decision in Speigner v. Speigner, 644 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In Speigner, the partie…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Cooper v. Cooper, 406 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- James v. James, 374 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979)
- Hines v. Hines, 494 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)