ROBERT H. ADAMS, APPELLANT,

v.

CHERYL D. ADAMS, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)
  …occupied by thq husband’s parents. The award was based upon the husband’s special equity in the property. We initially accepted jurisdiction based upon conflict in the areas of exclusive possession and special equity. Conflict with Watson v. Watson, 324 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), Ranes v. Ranes, 311 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), and Saviteer v. McAdoo, 310 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), concerning the award of exclusive possession has been resolved in part by our express disapproval of Saviteer and Ranes…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Maxwell G. Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 345 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
  …employment and the husband has very little in the way of capital assets. Based on the foregoing facts, we have researched the recent decisions and find them to be contrary to the lower court’s ruling in the case now before us. In Watson v. Watson, 324 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975), the court reversed an award of exclusive possession, pointing out that that award did not take the form of lump sum alimony, nor was it awarded by reason of minor children to whom the husband would owe child support obligations.…
• Segal v. Segal, 353 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
  …’s obligation to support and maintain them; or there is a valid agreement with respect to exclusive possession between the parties; or there is a finding of a special equity. See Saviteer v. McAdoo, 310 So. 2d 28 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Watson v. Watson, 324 So. 2d 126 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Church v. Church, 338 So. 2d 544 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). In the instant case there are no minor children, there is no finding of a special equity, there is no agreement and the possession award did not take the form of lump sum alimon…

Authorities Cited

• Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1956)