Carroll v. Carroll

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carroll v. Carroll

545 So. 2d 338, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1212, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2641, 1989 WL 50240

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 17, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1080

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 545 So. 2d 338 (Carroll v. Carroll) 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

Carroll v. Carroll, 545 So. 2d 338, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1212, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2641, 1989 WL 50240 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order of the trial court which enforced an amended final judgment by requiring the former wife to transfer her interest in a jointly owned parcel of real property to her former husband. It is clear from the face of the record that the amended final judgment, for whatever reason, did not, on its face, award the wife’s interest in the property to the husband. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction, sixteen months later, to adjudicate rights to property not mentioned in the judgment, absent a reservation of jurisdiction for that purpose. Cf. Davis v. Dieujuste, 496 So.2d 806 (Fla.1986); Horne v. Horne, 417 So.2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So.2d 6 (Fla.1983); Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 235 So.2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). The order was, in effect, a modification rather than an enforcement of the judgment.

We note that an appeal of the amended final judgment remains pending. Therefore, this opinion does not consider, and is without prejudice to, the rights, if any, that either party may have pursuant to rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, or otherwise, upon issuance of a mandate in that appeal.

LETTS, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order of the trial court which enforced an amended final judgment by requiring the former wife to transfer her interest in a jointly owned parcel of real property to her former husband. It is clear from the face of the record that the amended final judgment, for whatever reason, did not, on its face, award the wife’s interest in the property to the husband. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction, sixteen months later, to adjudicate rights to property not mentioned in the judgment, absent a reservation of jurisdiction for that purpose. Cf. Davis v. Dieujuste, 496 So.2d 806 (Fla.1986); Horne v. Horne, 417 So.2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 429 So.2d 6 (Fla.1983); Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 235 So.2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). The order was, in effect, a modification rather than an enforcement of the judgment.

We note that an appeal of the amended final judgment remains pending. Therefore, this opinion does not consider, and is without prejudice to, the rights, if any, that either party may have pursuant to rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, or otherwise, upon issuance of a mandate in that appeal.

LETTS, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 So. 2d 338, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1212, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2641, 1989 WL 50240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-carroll-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack