Burgess v. Burgess

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burgess v. Burgess

411 So. 2d 954, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19564

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 1982

DocketNo. XX-407

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 411 So. 2d 954 (Burgess v. Burgess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burgess v. Burgess, 411 So. 2d 954, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19564 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant wife asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in not granting her a special equity in appellee husband’s solely owned corporation, and in failing to award adequate lump sum alimony and permanent periodic alimony. We see no basis for the asserted special equity and no abuse of discretion in the awards of lump sum and permanent periodic alimony. See, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, at 1200-1203 (Fla.1980).

On cross-appeal, appellee husband appeals from a portion of the final judgment of dissolution which awarded the wife real property owned in fee simple by the husband’s solely owned corporation, a non-party to the action. We agree that this was error. Feldman v. Feldman, 390 So.2d 1231 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). We REVERSE and REMAND with directions that the trial judge delete Winter Home Lot 92 from the assets awarded to the wife. The wife shall be granted an alternative award equivalent in value, as nearly as practicable, to the deleted asset.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

McCORD, ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant wife asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in not granting her a special equity in appellee husband’s solely owned corporation, and in failing to award adequate lump sum alimony and permanent periodic alimony. We see no basis for the asserted special equity and no abuse of discretion in the awards of lump sum and permanent periodic alimony. See, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, at 1200-1203 (Fla.1980).

On cross-appeal, appellee husband appeals from a portion of the final judgment of dissolution which awarded the wife real property owned in fee simple by the husband’s solely owned corporation, a non-party to the action. We agree that this was error. Feldman v. Feldman, 390 So.2d 1231 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). We REVERSE and REMAND with directions that the trial judge delete Winter Home Lot 92 from the assets awarded to the wife. The wife shall be granted an alternative award equivalent in value, as nearly as practicable, to the deleted asset.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

McCORD, ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 So. 2d 954, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-burgess-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack