JACK PEARSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR MAE PEARSON, 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 appellate court reversed a portion of a divorce decree that awarded the marital home to the wife, finding that the divorce complaint lacked the necessary pleadings to support such a property division.
Yes, the trial court erred in awarding the marital home to the wife because the divorce complaint lacked the necessary pleadings to support such a property division.
“We conclude that the pleadings afforded no basis for the relief granted in that portion of the decree relating to defendant's interest in the property held by the parties as an estate by the entireties.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for reversing the property division.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband, who was incarcerated, was granted a divorce from his wife. The divorce decree awarded the marital home, held as a tenancy by the entireties…
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 Tenancy By The Entirety cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-husband was the defendant in a divorce suit wherein his wife was granted a divorce and awarded title to the home, which was held by the parties as a tenancy by the entireties.
Appellant seeks reversal of that part of the decree relating to the property rights of the parties. He raises the point on appeal that it was error for the chancellor to enter any order relating to his property rights in the home because the complaint for divorce contained no allegation relating to property rights, description of property owned, amount of contribution or prayer for partition. Appellant further points out that he was in jail at the time the divorce proceedings were brought, that he filed no pleadings therein and that he was not in attendance at the hearing.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and considered the law as it relates to the point on appeal. We conclude that the pleadings afforded no basis for the relief granted in that portion of the decree relating to defendant’s interest in the property held by the parties as an estate by the entireties. Accordingly that portion of the decree is reversed. The remaining portion stands affirmed. Valentine v. Valentine, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 885; Nethery v. Nethery, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 10 (Opinion filed July 2, 1968, D.C.A. 1st); Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 592; Banfi v. Banfi, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 52; § 689.15, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dov Gelkop v. Gelkop, 384 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…hold that it is a “nullity” for some, but not for all purposes. . See Belsky v. Belsky, 324 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 1180 (Fla.1976). . Kitchens v. Kitchens, 162 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); see Pearson v. Pearson, 213 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).…
-
Lenore Toby v. Toby, 280 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…d, or whether one party should purchase the interest of the other. The Appellant’s answer requesting the division of certain properties does not meet the requirements for partition set forth in Florida Statute § 64.091, F.S.A. In Pearson v. Pearson, 213 So. 2d 304 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1968), it was held that it is reversible error for a chancellor to adjudicate, upon a petition for dissolution, rights in property held by the entirety in which the pleadings afforded no basis for relief. Accordingly, the refusal of th…
Authorities Cited
- Banfi v. Enrico Luigi Banfi, 123 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Valentine v. Valentine, 45 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1950)
- Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 179 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Nethery v. Winona Nethery, 212 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)