ALLEN COHEN, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA COHEN, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1993-02-17
No. 91-2599
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
613 So. 2d 1361 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1993) Caution
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this divorce enforcement case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's monetary judgment against the former husband for failing to transfer marital assets as required by the final judgment of dissolution. The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the property distribution by ordering a monetary payment in lieu of asset transfer.


Holding

The court reversed the monetary judgment, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the distribution of property made in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The court remanded with direction to enter an order transferring the former wife's one-half interest in the assets pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570(c) and (d), retaining jurisdiction to enforce the order.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify a final judgment of dissolution of marriage by ordering a party to pay the monetary equivalent of assets that were not transfer…

[2] A final judgment of dissolution of marriage that requires parties to execute documentation to effectuate the transfer of jointly owned assets is not modified by an order…

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

Key Quotes

“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”

Establishes the core holding that a trial court cannot convert a property distribution into a monetary judgment

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The final judgment of dissolution entered in April 1989 provided that the parties would each own a one-half interest in specified marital assets and w…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant/former husband appeals a final order entered in favor of appellee/former wife. Although he raises three issues, we find only the first requires reversal and discussion. The other points present no error by the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand with direction to the trial court to enter an order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570(c) and (d), transferring to appellee her one-half interest in the assets described in paragraph XXIV of the final judgment and retaining jurisdiction over the parties and property to enforce said order. Appellant’s first point is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order him to pay the monetary equivalent of assets he did not transfer pursuant to the final judgment of dissolution entered in April 1989.

Paragraph XXIV of the final judgment provided:

That except as otherwise provided herein, the parties shall each own a one-half interest in the assets described in Paragraph No. 19 hereof, subject to encumbrances thereon. The parties shall execute, within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, any necessary and appropriate documentation to effectuate the foregoing.

Paragraph XIX of the trial court’s findings included:

That the Respondent owns in his own name or has control over the following described assets, which are marital assets, to wit:
a. Stock in County National Bank worth approximately Two Thousand Four Hundred Ten Dollars ($2,410.00)

b. A one-half interest in a timeshare apartment in Delray Beach, Florida worth approximately $4,500.00, for which there is apparently no market.

c. A one-half interest in a partnership which owns various parcels of real property, which said one-half interest is worth approximately Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($27,-400.00) — the Roñal partnership.

d. A partial interest in a limited partnership described as Biscayne Woods Apartments and/or Biscayne Woods Apartments Limited, worth approximately Forty-five Thousand Dollars ($45,-000.00)

f. A limited partnership interest in The Learning Experience Limited Partnership worth approximately $5,000.

h. A limited partnership interest in Airport Marina Associates, Ltd., which the Respondent claims is worthless.

A provision of the final order on appeal provides as follows:

5. That in light of the total lack of compliance of the Former Husband with the Final Judgment of Dissolution (specifically Paragraph No. XIX thereof), and based on the Former Wife’s request, the Court finds it equitable to allow the Former Husband to be the sole owner of the property set forth in Paragraph No. XIX of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. In lieu of the following, the Former Wife is entitled to a Judgment in the amount of Forty Two Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Five Dollars ($42,-155.00), for all of which let execution issue forthwith.

We reverse the judgment for $42,155.00. Essentially appellant argues that the trial court modified the distribution of property made in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the final judgment. We agree. See Schneider v. Schneider, 296 So. 2d 77, 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 277 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 287 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1973).

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Moran v. Moran, 634 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
    …n the parties’ post-judgment motions for contempt. We find that the trial court erred in redetermining the parties’ property rights post-judgment and in ordering former husband to reimburse former wife for items of personal property. Cohen v. Cohen, 613 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The trial court, however, did not err in ordering former wife to reimburse former husband for fixtures and utility bills and to return personal items to former husband. Accordingly, we reverse only that portion of the order rede…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw