Granda v. Granda

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Granda v. Granda

457 So. 2d 589, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2203, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15567

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 16, 1984

DocketNo. 84-517

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 457 So. 2d 589 (Granda v. Granda) 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

Granda v. Granda, 457 So. 2d 589, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2203, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15567 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the husband challenges the trial court’s “special equity” award to the wife of his one-half interest in the marital condominium.

Although the award to the wife of the husband’s half-interest in the marital home was mislabeled a “special equity,” the record reflects that such provision can be upheld as equitably appropriate under the circumstances despite its mistaken nomenclature. Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); McCall v. McCall, 386 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); see Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980). Finding that a “reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial judge,” Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984), we conclude that the trial judge, who was in a better position to determine the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, did not abuse his discretion, and we affirm the award of the husband’s interest in the marital domicile as an appropriate lump sum alimony award.

Affirmed as modified.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the husband challenges the trial court’s “special equity” award to the wife of his one-half interest in the marital condominium.

Although the award to the wife of the husband’s half-interest in the marital home was mislabeled a “special equity,” the record reflects that such provision can be upheld as equitably appropriate under the circumstances despite its mistaken nomenclature. Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); McCall v. McCall, 386 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); see Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980). Finding that a “reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial judge,” Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984), we conclude that the trial judge, who was in a better position to determine the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, did not abuse his discretion, and we affirm the award of the husband’s interest in the marital domicile as an appropriate lump sum alimony award.

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 So. 2d 589, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2203, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granda-v-granda-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack