McGregor v. McGregor

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McGregor v. McGregor

371 So. 2d 567, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14755

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 1979

DocketNo. 77-2592

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 371 So. 2d 567 (McGregor v. McGregor) 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

McGregor v. McGregor, 371 So. 2d 567, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14755 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The wife contends that the child support of $100.00 to be paid by the husband is too low; that the court erred in denying her an award for attorneys fees; and that the court erred in awarding the husband various items of personal property which were jointly owned. The husband claims error in the trial court’s determination that, as between the husband and wife, the wife was a one-third owner of certain real estate owned by the parties and the husband’s father.

As to the amount of the child support, we believe the evidence was undisputed that a greater amount was required to help support the child and that the husband had the ability to pay. Likewise, the evidence as to the ability of the husband and the needs of the wife established that the wife was entitled to some award of attorneys fees.

As to the property matters, the court was without authority to award the husband those items of personal property jointly owned by the parties. Furthermore, we find that the evidence presented to establish the wife’s interest in the property referred to by the parties as the Honeymoon Hill property showed that the husband and wife were to be one-half owners [568]*568in such property and the husband’s father a one-half owner.

Accordingly, we reverse those portions of the final judgment discussed, supra, and remand with directions that the amount of child support be increased; that the provisions awarding the husband portions of the jointly owned property be vacated; that the wife be awarded attorneys fees, the amount to be determined after hearing by the trial court; and that the portion of the final judgment determining the wife’s interest in the Honeymoon Hill property be vacated.

CROSS, ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The wife contends that the child support of $100.00 to be paid by the husband is too low; that the court erred in denying her an award for attorneys fees; and that the court erred in awarding the husband various items of personal property which were jointly owned. The husband claims error in the trial court’s determination that, as between the husband and wife, the wife was a one-third owner of certain real estate owned by the parties and the husband’s father.

As to the amount of the child support, we believe the evidence was undisputed that a greater amount was required to help support the child and that the husband had the ability to pay. Likewise, the evidence as to the ability of the husband and the needs of the wife established that the wife was entitled to some award of attorneys fees.

As to the property matters, the court was without authority to award the husband those items of personal property jointly owned by the parties. Furthermore, we find that the evidence presented to establish the wife’s interest in the property referred to by the parties as the Honeymoon Hill property showed that the husband and wife were to be one-half owners [568]*568in such property and the husband’s father a one-half owner.

Accordingly, we reverse those portions of the final judgment discussed, supra, and remand with directions that the amount of child support be increased; that the provisions awarding the husband portions of the jointly owned property be vacated; that the wife be awarded attorneys fees, the amount to be determined after hearing by the trial court; and that the portion of the final judgment determining the wife’s interest in the Honeymoon Hill property be vacated.

CROSS, ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 So. 2d 567, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgregor-v-mcgregor-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack