JOHN WILLIAM CLEARY, APPELLANT,
v.
DORIS LEA HOUGH, 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 post-divorce dispute over asset division, the court affirmed the trial court's award of security fund proceeds to the wife but reversed the denial of the husband's claim to post-divorce dividends on jointly-held AT&T stock and the award of attorney's fees to the wife.
The court held that the security fund proceeds properly went to the wife and affirmed that award. The court held that each party owned one-half of the AT&T stock as tenants in common following the dissolution judgment. The court held that the husband was entitled to dividends declared after the final judgment of dissolution because dividends follow ownership, and the trial court erred in awarding all dividends to the wife. The court also held that attorney's fees were improperly awarded under section 768.79, Florida Statutes.
[1] Assets held as joint tenants during a marriage, not addressed in a final judgment of dissolution, become property of the parties as tenants in common upon the date of the…
[2] Dividends declared on stock follow ownership, entitling a tenant in common to a share of dividends declared after the date of the final judgment of dissolution.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Since the final judgment in that action was silent as to the stock, the parties, by operation of law, became owners as tenants in common on the date of the final judgment.”
Establishes that the parties' ownership status in jointly-held property was converted to tenancy in common when the dissolution judgment did not address 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 intelligenceFollowing a final judgment dissolving the parties' marriage, a dispute arose over the ownership of a security fund and fourteen shares of AT&T stock h…
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 Joint Tenancy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, John William Cleary, challenges a declaratory judgment entered in response to the appellee’s, Doris Lea Hough, request that the court determine the ownership of certain assets. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
This dispute arose following a final judgment of dissolution terminating the marriage between the parties. When the parties could not agree upon the effect of the judgment in relation to certain assets, the appellee filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment. The appellee requested the court to determine the ownership of the proceeds of a security fund and fourteen shares of AT & T stock held by the parties as joint tenants during their marriage. The appellant filed a counterclaim seeking his share of the dividends on the stock.
At the conclusion of a nonjury trial, the trial court held that the proceeds of the security fund belonged to the wife pursuant to the final judgment of dissolution. The court also held that the AT & T stock should be divided between the parties but denied the appellant’s request for a share of the dividends. The appellee was awarded costs and attorney’s fees. This timely appeal followed the final judgment entered by the trial court.
The court properly awarded the proceeds of the security fund and costs to the appellee. We, accordingly, affirm those awards without discussion. The court also properly determined that each of the parties owned one-half of the stock. During the dissolution proceeding, neither of the parties claimed any special equity or entitlement in the fourteen shares of AT & T stock held as joint tenants. Since the final judgment in that action was silent as to the stock, the parties, by operation of law, became owners as tenants in common on the date of the final judgment. However, since dividends follow ownership, the appellant was entitled to a share of any dividends declared after the final judgment of dissolution, and the trial court erred by awarding all of the dividends to the appel-lee. In re Parker, 110 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959).
Since section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1987), is not a proper basis for an award of attorney’s fees in this case, the trial court also erred by awarding attorney’s fees to the appellee.
We, accordingly, reverse and remand with instructions to award the appellant his share of the dividends on the AT & T stock and to strike the award of attorney’s fees. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clemon James Johnson, Jr. v. Johnson, 902 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…e tenants in common.” § 689.15, Fla. Stat. (2004). The principle of equitable distribution, which became the law in 1980 under Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), neither abrogates nor conflicts with that concept. In Cleary v. Hough, 567 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the final judgment of dissolution was silent as to certain stock held by the parties as joint tenants during the marriage. After dissolution, a dispute arose concerning entitlement to the stock and to dividends. Id. at 1040. The…
-
Melida A. Demorizi v. Nestor M. Demorizi, 851 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…tted from the property settlement agreement and from the final judgment, the husband and wife became tenants in common in the property, by operation of law, upon entry of the final judgment. Powell v. Metz, 55 So. 2d 915 (Fla.1952); Cleary v. Hough, 567 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990);. Pemelman v. Pemelman, 186 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 179 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). This chancery court had, and continues to have, full jurisdiction over the parties and continuing jurisdi…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Howard W. Parker v. Parker, 110 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)