Hyman v. Hyman

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BERANEK, JOHN R.; HOBSON, Acting C.J., and GRIMES; BERANEK, JOHN R.; HOBSON, Acting C.J., and GRIMES
• Citation: Hyman v. Hyman, 310 So.2d 378 (Fla. App. 1975)
• Decision Date: 05 February 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74--96,74--96
• Parties: Leonard J. HYMAN, Appellant, v. May K. HYMAN, Appellee.

Page 378

310 So.2d 378

Leonard J. HYMAN, Appellant, v. May K. HYMAN, Appellee.

No. 74--96.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 5, 1975.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1975.

C. Eugene Jones, Ginsburg, Ross, Dent & Byrd, Sarasota, for appellant.

William C. Strode, Strode, Hereford & Taylor, Sarasota, for appellee.

BERANEK, JOHN R., Associate Judge.

This is an appeal in a dissolution of marriage case as consolidated below with a separate suit on an oral contract. An appeal and cross-appeal have been taken. We affirm.

The parties will be referred to as husband and wife. After a five-year marriage, the wife filed suit for dissolution. The husband filed a separate suit alleging an oral contract between himself and a corporation in which he and the wife owned stock and which was devoted to family business ventures. The wife filed an answer and counterclaim in the contract suit. The Trial Court consolidated the two cases.

After a trial the Court entered judgment dissolving the marriage and reserving jurisdiction to later determine the complex property division questions involved in the two suits. Approximately two months later the amended final judgment disposing of the property questions was entered. A later order amended the judgment in minor respects not involved in this appeal.

The husband appeals and asserts three points. He contends the Trial Court erred (1) in reserving jurisdiction, (2) in awarding the wife a special equity in jointly owned property, and (3) in admitting certain evidence.

On cross-appeal the wife attacks an award to the husband of money damages in the contract suit.

The husband/appellant argues the Trial Court had no power to reserve jurisdiction to determine property rights. He thus contends that all property owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety was subject to the automatic effect of Florida Statute 689.15. The husband claims he and the wife now own all property previously owned by the entireties as tenants in common by virtue of the automatic effect of the Statute and that the Court's subsequent judgment awarding the wife a special equity was in conflict with the rules laid down in Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So.2d 423 (1948); McEachin v. McEachin, 154 So.2d 894 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1963); and Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 235 So.2d 53 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1970). The appellee/wife asserts the reservation of jurisdiction was valid and relies on Farr v. Farr, 249 So.2d 761 (3d DL.C.A.Fla.1971).

The question is whether a Trial Court may enter a judgment dissolving a marriage but within said judgment reserve jurisdiction to determine later the property rights between the parties. It is uncontested that a court may reserve jurisdiction to determine child custody, support and alimony. The cases relied upon by appellant are to the effect that a 'final judgment of dissolution' must settle all property rights and that no reservation of jurisdiction to determine property rights may be made. The Farr case, Supra, appears to be to the contrary. Therein, the parties had stipulated to a reservation of jurisdiction and the Third District Court held that reservation valid.

It is the opinion of this Court that the Trial Court herein had adequate basis to reserve jurisdiction over the property rights of the litigants due to the consolidation of the dissolution and contract actions. The jointly owned property was the subject of the consolidated contract suit and jurisdiction, therefore, appears clear.

It is further the opinion of this Court that the Court below had the power to reserve jurisdiction in the dissolution case alone. We rule that a Trial Court may enter an interlocutory order granting a dissolution of marriage and therein reserve jurisdiction to later determine property rights. The Judgment of Dissolution remains interlocutory until such time as a Final Judgment of Dissolution is later entered determining all property rights and confirming the interlocutory judgment previously entered.

As to the Si...