MARGARET LUCILLE TUCKER, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN CLAYTON TUCKER, 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 business was inadvertently included as a marital asset subject to equal division and reversed that portion of the judgment. The court affirmed the joint ownership finding for the organ.
Wife appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and partition. She argued the trial court erred in including her real estate business as an …
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 Property Division cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a timely appeal filed by appellant/counter petitioner (wife) from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage and partition entered in a dissolution of marriage action. The wife attacks the judgment in two respects:
First, that the trial court erred in its finding contained in paragraph 2b of the said final judgment. The provision provides:
2. The parties are found and determined to be owners of an undivided one-half interest each in the following described property:
$ * * * * *
b. The business known as Margaret L. Tucker Real Estate, together with the cash, personal property, accounts receivable, and assets held in connection therewith.
We agree and reverse. Based on our study of the complete record, we have determined that the said business, operated by the wife in the home of the parties after the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by appellee/counter respondent (husband), was inadvertently included in the marital assets which were divided equally between the parties.
The second point raised here concerns a dispute over the organ acquired by the parties during the marriage. The testimony of the parties as to the ownership of this property is in conflict. The trial judge in the exercise of his discretion found the property to be jointly owned. We agree.
Accordingly, for the above-stated reasons, the case is
Reversed in part; affirmed in part.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellynn Josephs v. Josephs, 357 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…is supported by the record and was based upon conflicting testimony concerning the ownership and the equities of the parties. The award will not be reversed on appeal in the absence of a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. See Tucker v. Tucker, 306 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). The same principle applies to the amount of the award as attorney’s fees. See Campbell v. Campbell, 220 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Affirmed.…