LUVENIA F. RICHARDSON, ALSO KNOWN AS LUVENIE F. RICHARDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY J. RICHARDSON, 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 trial court properly refused partition of the jointly owned home because the father, who was awarded custody of the minor children, was granted exclusive possession.
Following a dissolution judgment silent on the jointly owned marital home, the wife filed a partition suit. The husband, awarded custody of the childr…
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 Partition Of Jointly Owned Property cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The marriage of the parties hereto was dissolved in May 1972. The final judgment awarded custody of the two minor children of the marriage to the father appellee. The judgment was silent as regards the jointly owned marital domicile.
In June 1972, the appellant wife filed a suit to partition the marital domicile. Appellee then filed a petition in the original dissolution proceeding to modify the final judgment and award him exclusive possession of said property while he had custody of the minor children. After successfully obtaining such an order modifying the judgment of dissolution appellee filed his answer in the partition suit asserting as an affirmative defense that he had been awarded exclusive possession of the property and thus appellant had no standing to maintain a suit for partition. A summary judgment was entered for appellee from which this appeal stems. The refusal of the trial court to grant partition of the jointly owned home was proper because the father and custodian of the minor children of the marriage was awarded exclusive possession thereof. Coggan v. Coggan, Fla.1970, 239 So. 2d 17; Black v. Miller, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 106.
Appellant also contends that it was error to award exclusive possession of the jointly owned home to the husband who was awarded custody of the children of the marriage. Prior to the passage of Chapter 71-241, Laws of Florida, 1971, such an award was improper. But with the advent of that statutory amendment and the requirement that both husband and wife may be required to provide child support, in an appropriate factual setting the trial court may award exclusive possession of a home previously held by the entireties to a husband who is granted custody of the minor children of the marriage.
On the record presented here we conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate error. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
OWEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)…rge, 360 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (aid to a child who had reached majority but who had a debilitating muscular disorder); Lange v. Lange, 357 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (aid to a spouse with mental problems); and Richardson v. Richardson, 315 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (aid to a spouse with custody of minors). In each of these instances, the exclusive possession is actually a facet of support and is clearly warranted because of the equity of the cause. We can foresee the need to grant temporary…
-
Wilmer H. McDONALD v. McDONALD, 368 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1979)…stody of children as an incident of the other party’s support obligation. McRae v. McRae, 52 So. 2d 908 (Fla.1951); Pollack v. Pollack, 159 Fla. 224, 31 So. 2d 253 (1947); Hoskin v. Hoskin, 329 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Richardson v. Richardson, 315 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Berger v. Berger, 182 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). The opinions in Ranes and Saviteer neglect to mention that exclusive possession can also be proper when the support obligation in question is owed to the wife alone. Banks v.…
-
Babooram Sugrim v. Sumattee Sugrim, 649 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…rge, 360 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (aid to a child who had reached majority but who had a debilitating muscular disorder); Lange v. Lange, 357 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (aid to a spouse with mental problems); and Richardson v. Richardson, 315 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (aid to a spouse with custody of minors). In each of these instances, the exclusive possession is actually a facet of support and is clearly warranted because of the equity of the cause. We can foresee the need to grant temporary…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Black v. Elliot L. Miller, 219 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Coggan v. Coggan, 239 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1970)