LILLIAN J. O'HARA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES E. O'HARA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Partition Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Acting Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The judgment, among other things, ordered that the jointly owned homeplace of the parties located in the State of New Jersey be listed for sale and sold. Appellant contends such was error. The requirement that this jointly owned home be sold was in effect a partitioning of the property, which the court was unauthorized to require in the absence of an agreement by the parties or a request for partition in the pleadings. Bergh v. Bergh, Fla.App. (1st), 127 So. 2d 481 (1961); Rankin v. Rankin, Fla.App. (2nd), 258 So. 2d 489 (1972); Coscia v. Coscia, Fla.App. (4th), 262 So. 2d 254 (1972); Moore v. Moore, Fla.App. (3rd), 311 So. 2d 152 (1975); and 10A Fla.Jur., Dissolution of Marriage, § 105. Here, there was no prayer for partition in the pleadings, and there is no indication that the parties were in agreement on the sale of the home. We make no ruling here on the question of whether or not the court, by consent of the parties or upon adequate pleadings, could direct sale of out-of-state property.
We have considered the other contentions of appellant on this appeal and find them to be without merit. That part of the final judgment which required sale of the home of the parties is reversed and the final judgment in other respects is affirmed.
MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…an v. Rozan, 49 Cal.2d 322, 317 P. 2d 11 (1957). It simply required a forced sale of the property and an equal distribution of the proceeds; it was, in other words, neither more nor less than an order for partition of the property. O’Hara v. O’Hara, 327 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); see Bell v. Bell, 112 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). A partition judgment is unquestionably in rem. Miller v. Griffen, 99 Fla. 976, 128 So. 416, 419 (1930); T.J.K. v. N.B., 237 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Accordingly, t…
-
Borntraeger v. Borntraeger, 521 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…s praying for partition, a chancellor has no authority either to partition jointly-owned property or effect what might amount to a property settlement between the parties..." Suhor v. Suhor, 341 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); O’Hara v. O’Hara, 327 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Coykendall v. Coykendall, 260 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (on rehearing); Rankin v. Rankin, 258 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). In the instant case, the pleadings did not reflect a prayer for partition, nor do we find in the re…
-
Dieter K. Pawlik v. Pawlik, 545 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…and a disproportionate division of the net proceeds of the sale. The effect of this provision is to attempt the partition of this real estate without proper pleadings or authority. Young v. Young, 507 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); O’Hara v. O’Hara, 327 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In no event could the lower court effect a partition of lands outside this state. Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). That portion of the final judgment ordering the sale of the Illinois property and the divis…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rankin v. Rankin, 258 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Bergh v. Bergh, 127 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Allie Pittman v. Mehaffey, 127 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Coscia v. Coscia, 262 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)