Tichenor v. Tichenor

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tichenor v. Tichenor

342 So. 2d 845, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15083

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1977

DocketNo. 76-974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 So. 2d 845 (Tichenor v. Tichenor) 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

Tichenor v. Tichenor, 342 So. 2d 845, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15083 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution proceeding the appellant has failed to show that the periodic alimony and child support awards were beyond the ambit of judicial discretion. However, appellant’s third point has merit and requires a modification of the judgment.

About two weeks before the parties separated, certain steel buildings were purchased for $19,000 and put in the name of the appellant. Pursuant to the rationale of Toby v. Toby, 280 So.2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), and on the premise that the purchase money came from a joint account, the court determined that the appellee was entitled to be reimbursed for one-half the cost of the buildings. Yet, the record only shows that $3,400 of the purchase price came from joint funds. Therefore, the appellee’s equitable lien against these buildings must be reduced from $9,500 to $1,700.

The judgment is affirmed as modified herein.

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution proceeding the appellant has failed to show that the periodic alimony and child support awards were beyond the ambit of judicial discretion. However, appellant’s third point has merit and requires a modification of the judgment.

About two weeks before the parties separated, certain steel buildings were purchased for $19,000 and put in the name of the appellant. Pursuant to the rationale of Toby v. Toby, 280 So.2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), and on the premise that the purchase money came from a joint account, the court determined that the appellee was entitled to be reimbursed for one-half the cost of the buildings. Yet, the record only shows that $3,400 of the purchase price came from joint funds. Therefore, the appellee’s equitable lien against these buildings must be reduced from $9,500 to $1,700.

The judgment is affirmed as modified herein.

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 So. 2d 845, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tichenor-v-tichenor-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack