Ferguson v. Ferguson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ferguson v. Ferguson

472 So. 2d 767, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1460, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14948

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 1985

DocketNo. 84-948

StatusPublished

This text of 472 So. 2d 767 (Ferguson v. Ferguson) 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

Ferguson v. Ferguson, 472 So. 2d 767, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1460, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14948 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

We affirm the final judgment in this dissolution of marriage case except as to the award of exclusive possession of the jointly owned marital home to the husband, which portion of the judgment we reverse. Neither party was awarded alimony, so such award of exclusive possession was not directly connected to a support obligation. Neither was there any evidence or finding that such possession was necessary to prevent reduction in the value of the property or to serve any special purpose. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); Cone v. Cone, 449 So.2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We find no merit to appellant’s remaining issues nor to the issue raised on appellee’s cross-appeal.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., and HAMMOND, K.C., Associate Judge, concur.

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

ORFINGER, Judge.

We affirm the final judgment in this dissolution of marriage case except as to the award of exclusive possession of the jointly owned marital home to the husband, which portion of the judgment we reverse. Neither party was awarded alimony, so such award of exclusive possession was not directly connected to a support obligation. Neither was there any evidence or finding that such possession was necessary to prevent reduction in the value of the property or to serve any special purpose. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); Cone v. Cone, 449 So.2d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We find no merit to appellant’s remaining issues nor to the issue raised on appellee’s cross-appeal.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., and HAMMOND, K.C., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 So. 2d 767, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1460, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-ferguson-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack