JOHN R. WOODRUM, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET BOYDSTON WOODRUM, 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 injunction preventing the husband from disposing of any assets without the wife's consent was overbroad and unreasonably restricted his livelihood.
Following a dissolution action, a general master recommended enjoining the husband from selling or encumbering any assets without the wife's consent. …
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
PER CURIAM.
John R. Woodrum [the husband] appeals from a nonfinal order adopting the findings of a general master in an action for dissolution of marriage. For the following reasons, we affirm in part but remand for reconsideration.
Following an eleven-year marriage, Margaret Woodrum [the wife] filed a dissolution action. In her petition, she sought a special equity in certain property owned by her husband. The husband derives his entire livelihood from his investments. Recently, the husband has had to resort to selling his assets in order to meet expenses.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the general master assigned to hear the cause recommended that during the pendency of the proceedings the husband be enjoined from selling, transferring, assigning, mortgaging, hypothecating, encumbering, or disposing of any assets in his possession or control without the prior consent of the wife. If the wife refused consent, the husband was to apply for a court order allowing him to take such action. Over the husband’s exceptions to the report, the trial court adopted the general master’s report.
The injunction imposed by the trial court was overbroad. The injunction effectively sequestered all of the husband’s assets and unreasonably restricted his means of making a living. Although the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in fashioning equitable relief to prevent dissipation of what may prove to be marital assets, we remand for reconsideration of the extent of the injunction. Cf. Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 565 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (temporary restraining order proper as attempt to avoid irreparable harm to wife’s right to have court equitably distribute marital assets; affirmance of injunction “without prejudice to the husband to seek a hearing to determine which of his assets need to be subject to the injunction or to provide other means to secure the wife’s potential alimony award”).
Affirmed in part; remanded for reconsideration.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gooding v. Gooding, 602 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…make such orders as will secure alimony to the party who should receive it. Examples abound of the use of injunctions to prevent the dissipation of property which is or may later be determined to be marital property. See, e.g., Woodrum v. Woodrum, 590 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Stefanowitz v. Stefanowitz, 586 So. 2d 460, 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 565 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Rouse v. Rouse, 313 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). In the instant case, appellant assert…
-
Heslop v. Earnest Moore, Jr., 716 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…to the merits, although the former husband points to the abundance of decisions which have upheld the issuance of injunctions to prevent the dissipation of property which is or may later be determined to be marital property, see Woodrum v. Woodrum, 590 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Stefanowitz v. Stefanowitz, 586 So. 2d 460, 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 565 So. 2d 914, 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Rouse v. Rouse, 313 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), we conclude that they have no appl…
-
Schaeffer v. Schaeffer, 606 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…doing or infraction, slandering or harassing each other. Neither party will make any remarks or take any action which will negatively impact upon the other person’s future income[.] The terms of the injunction are overbroad. See Woodrum v. Woodrum, 590 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Woods v. Dozier, 529 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Goodell v. Goodell, 421 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Although, on proper request, the trial court may enter an injunction prohibiting certain actions, see Schutz v. Schutz,…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 565 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)