WILLIAM W. BEARD, APPELLANT,
v.
DORIS E. BEARD, 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 held that a trial court cannot award property in a dissolution absent an agreement or appropriate pleading for such relief.
The husband appealed the dissolution judgment, including the award of personal property. The wife claimed a special equity in the marital home, but th…
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 Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Mr. Beard appeals the award to his wife of the real property and certain of the personal property of the parties, the amount of permanent alimony awarded to her, and the requirement that he pay certain debts, a portion of his wife’s attorney’s fees, and court costs in connection with the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. Except with respect to the award to the wife of all personal property located in, on and around the marital home, we find no error or abuse of judicial discretion.
The wife claimed and proved a special equity in the marital home. She also sought the award of certain specified pieces of personal property — certain automobiles and an insurance policy — which she was awarded by stipulation and which are not in issue on this appeal. However, there was no plea for the personal property in and around the marital home in either the husband’s petition for dissolution or in the wife’s counterpetition. Further, there was no evidence or testimony offered regarding this property at the final hearing.
A trial court may not dispose of property belonging to the parties as an incident to a divorce in the absence of an agreement between the parties or an appropriate pleading for such relief. Helsel v. Helsel, 138 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). There being no such agreement or pleading here, that portion of the final judgment of dissolution awarding the personal property in, on and around the marital home to the wife must be reversed. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dov Gelkop v. Gelkop, 384 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ack of proper due process notice to the husband even assuming the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the parties. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 363 So. 2d 393, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Foxx v. Foxx, 357 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Beard v. Beard, 356 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Rankin v. Rankin, 258 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Coscia v. Coscia, 262 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).3 “Even though the [sjtate has jurisdiction over the parties and even though the court is one of competency to render the j…
Authorities Cited
- Helsel v. Helsel, 138 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)