EVA SCHWARTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ISRAEL SCHWARTZ, 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.
Wife's appeal of divorce judgment affirmed; trial court properly divided property held by entireties and did not err in failing to provide child support where wife tacitly agreed to husband's maintenance arrangement.
A trial court may divide property held by the entireties in a divorce proceeding if division is sought by one party and tried without objection.
[1] In a divorce proceeding, a trial court may divide property held by the entireties if one party seeks such division and the matter is tried without objection.
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 intelligence“the trial court is authorized to make a division of property even if held by the entireties if such a division is sought by one of the parties and tried without objection”
Court's statement of the applicable rule from Walton v. Walton regarding division of entireties property in divorce.
Eva Schwartz appealed a final divorce judgment from her marriage to Israel Schwartz, challenging the award of business property held as an estate by t…
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 Tenancy By The Entirety cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner wife, Eva Schwartz, appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Israel Schwartz and assigns error upon the financial provisions of the judgment. The primary point urged is that the trial court erred in awarding to the husband the business property which was held as an estate by the entirety. A review of the partial record before us shows that the wife claimed and received as lump sum alimony the husband’s interest in a substantial portion of the non-business property including rental property. The conduct of this cause brings the facts of this case within the scope of the rule stated in Walton v. Walton, Fla.App.1974, 290 So. 2d 110, where the court of appeal held that the trial court is authorized to make a division of property even if held by the entireties if such a division is sought by one of the parties and tried without objection. But see Niemann v. Niemann, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 415, and Newberger v. Newberger, Fla.App. 1975, 311 So. 2d 176.
An additional point is presented urging that the court erred in failing to provide for the support of a 17 year old son who is being maintained in school by the husband. We think that no error is shown inasmuch as the wife tacitly agreed to the present arrangement and if the husband should change the circumstances by failing to follow the stipulation, a proper provision for the support during the remaining minority of the 17 year old can be made by the trial court upon petition.
The remaining points presented by the appellant have been considered and found not to present reversible error. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quesada v. Quesada, 396 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Schwartz v. Schwartz, 336 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).…
Authorities Cited
- Niemann v. Niemann, 294 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Norwood K. Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)