JEANNE FRIEDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD FRIEDMAN, 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 reversed the trial court's property settlement provisions in a dissolution judgment, holding that the trial court lacked authority to effect such a settlement under the facts and circumstances presented.
A trial court lacks authority to effect a property settlement between parties in a dissolution action under the facts and circumstances of this case.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to effect a property settlement between parties to a dissolution action under certain factual circumstances, even when purporting to do so a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution that awarded the appellant the jointly owned marital domicile and the appellee jointly owned re…
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 Division Of Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel for the respective parties, we determine that the result of numbered paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the final judgment of dissolution entered herein, awarding appellant the jointly owned marital domicile, awarding appellee jointly owned rental property, and directing conveyance of the parties’ interests in said properties in accordance with the aforementioned awards, was to effect a property settlement between parties to an action for dissolution. See Harder v. Harder, 264 So. 2d 476 (Fla.App.1972); Kitchens v. Kitchens, 162 So. 2d 539 (Fla.App.1964); Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 156 So. 2d 206 (Fla.App.1963). The trial court, under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, was without authority to effect such a property settlement. Niemann v. Niemann, 294 So. 2d 415 (Fla.App. 4th 1974), cert. disch., 312 So. 2d 733 (Fla.1975).
Accordingly, numbered paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the final judgment of dissolution are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed. In all other respects the final judgment of dissolution is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
CROSS, OWEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Segal v. Segal, 353 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…to obtain another life insurance policy. Last, this award had the effect of imposing a partial property settlement upon the parties. The trial court under the circumstances was without authority to effect such a settlement. See Friedman v. Friedman, 320 So. 2d 414 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). We also agree with James that the award of an attorney’s fee was erroneous. The well established law is that a chancellor may not make an award of attorney’s fees without the introduction of expert testimony or evidence and it…
Authorities Cited
- Niemann v. Niemann, 294 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Harder v. Harder, 264 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Kitchens v. Kitchens, 162 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 156 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Niemann v. Niemann, 312 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1975)