Gliozzo v. Gliozzo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gliozzo v. Gliozzo

503 So. 2d 967, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 736, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7167

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2525

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 503 So. 2d 967 (Gliozzo v. Gliozzo) 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

Gliozzo v. Gliozzo, 503 So. 2d 967, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 736, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7167 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although the evidence does not support the husband’s claim that all of the sums paid towards the purchase of the entireties property in Seminole County came from his separate funds unconnected with the marital relationship, it does appear, without dispute, that the substantial down payment made by the husband came from a source unconnected with the marital relationship and that, therefore, the trial court erred in denying the husband’s claim for a special equity in this property. Accordingly, the judgment of dissolution is reversed in respect to the denial of the husband’s special equity in this property and affirmed in all other respects. The case is remanded to the trial court for a determination of the husband’s special equity in accordance with Landay v. Landay, 429 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1983).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although the evidence does not support the husband’s claim that all of the sums paid towards the purchase of the entireties property in Seminole County came from his separate funds unconnected with the marital relationship, it does appear, without dispute, that the substantial down payment made by the husband came from a source unconnected with the marital relationship and that, therefore, the trial court erred in denying the husband’s claim for a special equity in this property. Accordingly, the judgment of dissolution is reversed in respect to the denial of the husband’s special equity in this property and affirmed in all other respects. The case is remanded to the trial court for a determination of the husband’s special equity in accordance with Landay v. Landay, 429 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1983).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 So. 2d 967, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 736, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gliozzo-v-gliozzo-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack