Harman v. Harman
| Decision Date | 08 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1871,87-1871 |
| Citation | 523 So.2d 187,13 Fla. L. Weekly 910 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 910 Richard A. HARMAN, Jr., Appellant, v. Jennifer HARMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wofford H. Stidham, Bartow, for appellant.
Theodore W. Weeks, III, Lakeland, for appellee.
In February 1985, the trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which incorporated by reference a "Stipulation and Agreement". The "Stipulation and Agreement" gave the wife the use and possession of the marital home and required the husband to pay the mortgage, maintenance and insurance costs of the home. The final judgment awarded the wife permanent alimony of $350.00 per month. The final judgment contained a general reservation of jurisdiction over the matter: "This Court retains jurisdiction over the matter of attorney's fees, the parties and the subject matter to enter such other and further orders as the Court deems necessary and just in the premises."
In February 1987, the wife moved to have the husband cited for contempt for failing to make alimony payments in a timely fashion. The husband answered with a petition for modification of the final judgment alleging that he was no longer able to meet the payments required by the final judgment.
A hearing was held on the parties' motions. The trial court examined the husband's financial affidavit and questioned the husband about his present wife's income. In May 1987, the trial court entered an order directing the husband to convey his interest in the former marital home to the wife. In June 1987, the trial court entered a second order reducing the permanent alimony required to be paid to $250.00 per month.
Appellant raises two points on appeal. First, appellant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to convey his interest in the former marital home to his former wife. Second, appellant argues that the trial court erred in considering his present wife's salary in determining his ability to pay the $250.00 per month permanent alimony.
At oral argument, with much appreciated candor, it was stipulated and agreed to by counsel that the trial judge herein committed reversible error in both points on appeal. Counsel urged us to reverse and remand this case to the trial judge for further action.
"[A] final decree in an equity suit settles all property rights of the parties and precludes any action thereafter brought by either party to determine the question of property rights." Dotter v. Dotter, 147 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). In the absence of a specific reservation of jurisdiction for the purpose of making a later adjudication of property rights, the court does not have jurisdiction to modify property rights after an adjudication of those rights has been made in a judgment of dissolution. Mason v. Mason, 371 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
The trial court's general reservation of jurisdiction in the instant case was "insufficient to preserve the court's jurisdiction to subsequently alter the property rights." Id. The trial court erred in awarding the husband's interest in the former marital home to the wife. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant's second point also has merit. As was stated in Montgomery v. Montgomery, 426 So.2d 1255 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wolas
...subject matter to enter such other and further orders as the Court deems necessary and just in the premises," Harman v. Harman , 523 So. 2d 187, 187-88 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988), and "the Court retains jurisdiction of this cause and the parties hereto to enter such other and further orders......
-
Pratt v. Pratt, 94-745
...off the income of the successor spouse to avoid the alimony obligation. Schneider v. Schneider, (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Harman v. Harman, 523 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Here, the Court finds that the Husband has deliberately limited his income by establishing a business in his new wife......
-
Work v. Provine, 92-2308
...to modify property rights after an adjudication of those rights has been made in a judgment of dissolution. Harman v. Harman, 523 So.2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Modification of a property settlement incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution may only be had if the party seeking modifi......
-
Fort v. Fort
...reservation of jurisdiction. § 61.14, Fla. Stat. (2005); Encarnacion v. Encarnacion, 877 So.2d 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Harman v. Harman, 523 So.2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); compare Hulse v. Hulse, 873 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In the......