LINDA PIERCE LEONARD, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN MARK LEONARD, 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 a marital dissolution case, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a temporary injunction preventing a wife from dissipating marital assets derived from lottery winnings. The court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Florida Statute 61.11 to prevent the dissipation of property that may be determined to be marital property.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding danger of dissipation of the funds or in entering the injunction to preserve the status quo. The statute applies where there is an attempt to dissipate marital assets, and the circumstances here—revocation of the controlling trust, removal of documents from the joint safe deposit box, and denial of the husband's access and claims—constituted sufficient grounds for the injunction.
[1] A court may award a ne exeat or injunction against a party or property in a marital dissolution case when a party is about to remove themselves or their property out of t…
[2] Injunctions in marital dissolution cases are authorized by statute to prevent the dissipation of marital assets.
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“When either party is about to remove himself or herself or his or her property out of the state, or fraudulently convey or conceal it, the court may award a ne exeat or injunction against the party or the property and make such orders as will secure alimony or support to the party who should receive it.”
The statutory basis for injunctions in marital dissolution cases when there is danger of dissipation of marital assets.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe couple had split lottery proceeds equally in the years preceding separation. The wife revoked the trust that had controlled the lottery monies for…
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 Dissipation Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
We affirm the temporary injunction.
Injunctions in marital dissolution cases are provided for by section 61.11, Florida Statutes (1995), which provides:
When either party is about to remove himself or herself or his or her property out of the state, or fraudulently convey or conceal it, the court may award a ne exeat or injunction against the party or the property and make such orders as will secure alimony or support to the party who should receive it.
This statute applies where there is an attempt to dissipate marital assets. Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 565 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Examples abound of the use of injunctions to prevent the dissipation of prop erty which is or may later be determined to be marital property. Gooding v. Gooding, 602 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), citing, 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; Rouse v. Rouse, 313 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
In the instant ease, the trial court found that although the couple had split the lottery proceeds equally in the years preceding the separation, the wife revoked the trust that had controlled the monies for the preceding six years, emptied the parties’ joint safe deposit box of all documents relating to the lottery winnings and trust documents, denied the husband access to those documents, and denied that the husband had a claim to future proceeds. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was danger of dissipation of the funds, or in entering the injunction to preserve the status quo.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stefanowitz v. Stefanowitz, 586 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 565 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Gooding v. Gooding, 602 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Rouse v. Gwendoline B. Rouse, 313 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Woodrum v. Woodrum, 590 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)