Stetson v. Stetson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stetson v. Stetson

356 So. 2d 53, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15126

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 1978

DocketNos. 76-2359 and 77-127

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 356 So. 2d 53 (Stetson v. Stetson) 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

Stetson v. Stetson, 356 So. 2d 53, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15126 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The husband in this divorce case raises several points on appeal. With one exception, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion: It erred in finding that a certain 1970 Lincoln automobile belongs to the wife. The automobile in question was titled in the joint names of the parties. The wife neither pled nor proved a special equity in the jointly owned automobile and an award of the husband’s interest in the automobile to the wife cannot be justified as alimony. The court specifically denied the wife’s prayer for alimony based upon the financial resources of both parties and the earning ability of the wife. We can find no legal basis for the court’s determination that the automobile belongs to the wife. It was jointly owned and upon dissolution of their marriage the parties became tenants-in-common.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The husband in this divorce case raises several points on appeal. With one exception, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion: It erred in finding that a certain 1970 Lincoln automobile belongs to the wife. The automobile in question was titled in the joint names of the parties. The wife neither pled nor proved a special equity in the jointly owned automobile and an award of the husband’s interest in the automobile to the wife cannot be justified as alimony. The court specifically denied the wife’s prayer for alimony based upon the financial resources of both parties and the earning ability of the wife. We can find no legal basis for the court’s determination that the automobile belongs to the wife. It was jointly owned and upon dissolution of their marriage the parties became tenants-in-common.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 So. 2d 53, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stetson-v-stetson-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack