THOMAS M. DOZIER, APPELLANT,
v.
JACQUELINE M. DOZIER, 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.
In a dissolution of marriage appeal, the court affirmed the award of $20,000 lump sum alimony to the wife but reversed and remanded the award of all personal property in the marital home for lack of evidentiary support regarding ownership or special equities.
A trial court's award of all personal property in a marital home to the wife in a dissolution proceeding constitutes an abuse of discretion absent testimony regarding ownership or evidence of special equities.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage, an award of all personal property in the marital home to one spouse constitutes an abuse of discretion absent testimony regarding ownership…
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 intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage, the trial court awarded the wife $20,000 lump sum alimony from the husband's share of proceeds from the marital home sal…
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 Matrimonial Domicile cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the husband challenges (1) the award to the wife of $20,-000.00 lump sum alimony to be paid from the husband’s share of the proceeds derived from the sale of the marital domicile; and (2) the award to the wife of title in the personal property on the premises, except for the husband’s personal effects.
The record reflects substantial evidentiary support for the award of $20,000.00 to the wife as lump sum alimony. This portion of the final judgment is affirmed. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
However, we find that the award to the wife of all of the personalty in the marital home constitutes a gross abuse of the trial court’s discretion. There is no testimony in the record as to the ownership of the personal property, nor is there a showing by the wife of special equities therein. Therefore, we reverse this portion of the final judgment and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to entertain further hearing upon motion of either or both of the parties, relating to disposition of the personalty in the marital home.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)