Serianni v. Serianni

41 Fla. Supp. 62
CourtCircuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Broward County
DecidedApril 24, 1973
DocketNo. 72-6622
StatusPublished

This text of 41 Fla. Supp. 62 (Serianni v. Serianni) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Broward County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Serianni v. Serianni, 41 Fla. Supp. 62 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1973).

Opinion

W. CLAYTON JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.

This cause came on to be heard on the husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage, the wife’s opposition thereto, and the wife’s claim of special equities, alimony and attorney’s fees, and the court having heard evidence in the cause from March 5th through March 10th, 1973, and studied the exhibits received in evidence, and having heard final arguments of counsel for both parties on March 16, 1973, makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and final judgment —

Findings of fact

Husband Charles Serianni and wife Josephine Serianni were married on November 23, 1949. It was her first marriage and his second.

Husband and wife had met shortly before in Stroudsberg, Pennsylvania, in October .of 1949. Although husband in March of 1949' had started a paving business called Di-Mar Paving Co., with a net worth of $40, in October of 1949, just one month before his marriage, he did not have enough money to get back to Fort Lauderdale from Stroudsberg and had to borow $90 from his future wife to return home.

Wife prior to marriage had worked and accumulated $2,400 in cash and, in addition, jewelry with an approximate $7,000 value. The husband having no credit at the time of marriage, wife transferred her $2,400 of savings and her jewelry to husband for use in the business. Husband deposited the $2,400 in the business checking account and took the jewelry to the Dania Bank and used it to collateralize a loan for the business. Although husband once'returned the $2,400 to the wife, he took it back again shortly thereafter to use in the business and, according to wife, has never returned it. By making her savings and jewelry available to the business, wife supplied a substantial portion of the the capital to get the business going.

Shortly after the marriage the parties purchased a house in their joint names. The business was conducted from that house for several years. The parties during those years maintained only one checking account which was used in the conduct of the business. The wife worked in the business on a regular basis from the home of the parties. At that time she acted as the message center for the business, taking and making telephone calls. She also billed and [64]*64performed whatever services her husband requested to further the business. Until the business was removed from the house, for a period of at least three years wife regularly drew a salary of $35 and husband a salary of $75 per week. At all times during the marriage, wife has been at the beck and call of the business and has performed whatever services were requested of her by husband. Among other things, she has collected bills, entertained business clients in her home and other places, acted to preserve business relationships, participated in employee relations and even gone to the quarry to sift out rock for testing.

After Di-Mar Paving Company was formed, husband formed Hollywood Quarries, Inc., Florida Asphalt, Inc., Di-Mar Trucking, Inc., Femcrest Mining Co., Inc. and Femcrest Land Co., Inc. Subsequently, husband obtained a substantial interest in Rolling Hills Country Club (Servan Land Co.) and certain acreage in BroWard County. All of these interests trace back to Di-Mar Paving Company. The earnings of Di-Mar Paving Company provided the financial means to enter the next succeeding business and so on up through all the real, personal and intangible property in which husband has an interest. In other words, from the capital a com planted by wife, the entire tree of Serianni businesses with all their branches sprang. It is perhaps appropriate to note that husband apparently has been an industrious, skillful and dedicated person to build the business complex that here exists — in no small measure truly a Horatio Alger success story.

At the time husband obtained the $2,400 from wife for use in the business, he told her they would be business partners and subsequently repeated this statement to wife. Wife performed other duties above and beyond that required of a wife which contributed materially to the success of the business. She attended sick members of the husband’s family in and out of Broward County and funerals of members of husband’s family so that he would be free to remain at the business. Although husband and wife had no children, wife treated husband’s son, Fred Serianni, by a previous marriage as if he were her own and treated the son’s children as if they were her own grandchildren. Wife covered for husband during extended periods of illness, among other things taking telephone calls from business acquaintances during such periods. Husband suffered from an illness which required the 24-hour attention of his wife for a period in excess of one year. Because of the extraordinary love, care and attention she gave husband above ánd beyond the duty of a wife, husband was enabled to go through the motions of working and the business was thereby preserved during husband’s periods of illness. Husband has at all times recognized wife’s equity by, among other things, making her an officer and director of Di-[65]*65Mar Paving, Inc. and Hollywood Quarries, Inc. until the parties commenced to have marital difficulties. Husband has also provided for wife from the business a new automobile annually (in recent years a new Cadillac), a maid, a man servánt, yard maintenance, pool maintenance, house maintenance, insurance on her vehicles and lines of credit such as Diners Club and Carte Blanche cards and gasoline cards. *

Husband because of his knowledge of wife’s interest in the property held in his name has attempted to conceal from the court facts relevant to the determination of the wife’s interest. He understated his assets in two voluntary proffers of his net worth filed with this court. He concealed a contract dated February 16, 1973, in which he as president of Rolling Hills Country Club has agreed to sell the assets of the club for $5,000,000, and another February 16, 1973 contract pursuant to which he and A. I. Saving have agreed to sell their interest in 160 acres adjacent to Rolling Hills for $3,360,000. He has not accounted for cash he has obtained from his personal account and has not accounted for cash obtained by cashing the checks from the businesses that never went into his personal account.

Wife by clear and convincing evidence has proven beyond a reasonable doubt special equities in all of the properties of husband, real, personal and intangible. She did not relinquish her special equities by reconciling with her husband and stipulating to a dismissal with prejudice of that certain action lately pending in the circuit court of Broward County styled Charles Serianni v. Josephine Serianni and numbered C61-942-“J”Cabot. Husband reconciled with wife with knowledge of said claim without securing any agreement, express or implied, that wife relinquished said claim.

In recent years the parties have lived by a standard of luxury. They have traveled in the highest circles of society. Husband has for many years served as the president of Rolling Hills Country Club and as such has entertained ánd been entertained on a grand scale, always accompanied by his lady. Husband either personally or through one of his companies has maintained a stable of race horses which have been entered at all tracks in South Florida and at race tracks in the north. Husband and wife have mingled with the very wealthy at the various turf clubs at horse tracks where his horses race. Both husband and wife have participated heavily in the sport of kings.

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

Related

Green v. Green
228 So. 2d 112 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Clawson v. Clawson
54 So. 2d 161 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1951)
Wollman v. Wollman
235 So. 2d 315 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Williams v. Williams
177 So. 2d 865 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Welsh v. Welsh
35 So. 2d 6 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1948)
Dupree v. Dupree
23 So. 2d 554 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1945)
Heath v. Heath
138 So. 796 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Strauss v. Strauss
3 So. 2d 727 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
State ex rel. State Road Department v. Wingfield
101 So. 2d 184 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 Fla. Supp. 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serianni-v-serianni-flacirct17bro-1973.