Wynne v. Wynne

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wynne v. Wynne

342 So. 2d 556, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15306

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1977

DocketNo. 76-333

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 So. 2d 556 (Wynne v. Wynne) 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

Wynne v. Wynne, 342 So. 2d 556, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15306 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage wherein the court awarded permanent alimony to the husband, and found that the husband has no special equity in the home of the wife. Appellant wife contends that the trial court erred in awarding permanent alimony to the husband. Appellee husband cross appeals and contends that the court erred in not awarding him a special equity in the home of the wife (which is and was owned by her prior to the marriage).

After reviewing the briefs, the record and the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and considering the oral argument of counsel, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the award of permanent alimony to the husband, or in the denial of the husband’s claim of special equity. Baker v. Baker, 299 So.2d 138 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Jacobs v. Jacobs, 309 So.2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Olson v. Olson, 321 So.2d 462 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Krasner v. Krasner, 339 So.2d 674 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976).

Affirmed.

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 wherein the court awarded permanent alimony to the husband, and found that the husband has no special equity in the home of the wife. Appellant wife contends that the trial court erred in awarding permanent alimony to the husband. Appellee husband cross appeals and contends that the court erred in not awarding him a special equity in the home of the wife (which is and was owned by her prior to the marriage).

After reviewing the briefs, the record and the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and considering the oral argument of counsel, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the award of permanent alimony to the husband, or in the denial of the husband’s claim of special equity. Baker v. Baker, 299 So.2d 138 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Jacobs v. Jacobs, 309 So.2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Olson v. Olson, 321 So.2d 462 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Krasner v. Krasner, 339 So.2d 674 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 So. 2d 556, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wynne-v-wynne-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack