In re the Marriage of Golub

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re the Marriage of Golub

310 So. 2d 380, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14004

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 7, 1975

DocketNo. 74-1056

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 310 So. 2d 380 (In re the Marriage of Golub) 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

In re the Marriage of Golub, 310 So. 2d 380, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14004 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Sarasota County, has certified the following question to this court:

UPON THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION IN THIS CAUSE WOULD THE TRIAL JUDGE THEREAFTER LACK THE AUTHORITY TO THEREAFTER AWARD THE WIFE-RESPONDENT HEREIN ALIMONY, SPECIAL EQUITIES IN THE HUSBAND-PETITIONER’S ASSETS OR DECLARE [381]*381HER TO BE THE OWNER OF CERTAIN ASSETS PRESENTLY HELD BY THE HUSBAND-PETITIONER EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION SPECIFICALLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO THEREAFTER DETERMINE THE CLAIMS OF ALIMONY, SPECIAL EQUITIES AND OWNERSHIP?

Hyman v. Hyman, (Fla.App.2d, 1975) 310 So.2d 378, makes it clear that the trial judge has the authority upon entry of a judgment of dissolution to reserve jurisdiction to thereafter determine property rights. Therefore, the above-stated' certified question is hereby answered in the negative.

HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur. McNULTY, C. J., dissents with opinion.

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