Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 91-2569

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPOLEN; HERSEY; FARMER; FARMER
Citation617 So.2d 327
Parties18 Fla. L. Week. D793 Ray SANDSTROM, Appellant, v. Jodi SANDSTROM, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 91-2569,91-2569
Decision Date24 March 1993

Page 327

617 So.2d 327
18 Fla. L. Week. D793
Ray SANDSTROM, Appellant,
v.
Jodi SANDSTROM, Appellee.
No. 91-2569.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District.
March 24, 1993.
Rehearing Denied May 25, 1993.

Page 328

Ray Sandstrom, pro se.

Kayo E. Morgan, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

POLEN, Judge.

The former husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Appellee former wife did not file a brief in this appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

The parties married February 20, 1981. The wife left the husband in July, 1987, and the husband petitioned for dissolution on September 19, 1988. There were no children born of this union. At the time of dissolution, the husband was 67 years old and the wife, 43. The husband did not attend the final hearing, although he received proper notice thereof.

Appellant first argues that the trial court erred when it awarded the wife certain stock in the husband's corporation. Appellant claims the pleadings do not even raise that issue and thus, the award must be reversed. See Cooper v. Cooper, 406 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (a judgment based outside the pleadings cannot stand). The record, however, contradicts appellant's assertion. It shows that on May 5, 1990, the trial court entered an order in which it granted appellee's motion to amend her counterpetition for dissolution of marriage and stated therein that the Second Amended Counter-petition, which appellee attached to her motion, was simultaneously filed. In the Second Amended Counter-petition, appellee alleged that appellant had transferred his share of stock in Sandstrom, Inc., appellant's company, to his live-in girlfriend during the pendency of the dissolution proceedings. Appellee included a prayer to the court to set aside these transfers "and restore the same to their original ownership identity for purposes of making an equitable distribution...." Thus, we find appellant's argument to be without merit and affirm this award.

Appellant next argues that the trial court erred when it awarded appellee funds from the sale of a building he owned with the two other stockholders of Sandstrom & Hodge, Inc. 1 Appellant contends the award is improper because (1) the building was not a marital asset and its value did not appreciate during the marriage; and (2) appellee had never filed a claim against the corporation and the corporation was never a party to the dissolution proceedings. Appellee only asserted that the corporation and appellant were one and the same. We hold that this allegation, without more, is insufficient to affirm this award. See Ashourian v. Ashourian, 483 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); compare Rosenberg v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, s. 93-253
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 25, 1994
    ...specifically found that in her pleadings the wife had requested the relief which the divorce court had granted. Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 617 So.2d 327, 328 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993). The Florida Supreme Court refused to hear the case on appeal. Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 629 So.2d 135 The wife fil......
  • In re Cherny, 17-0245
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • June 6, 2018
    ...payment, the dissolution decree has no legal impact on JSV, its assets, or its other shareholders. Contra Sandstrom v. Sandstrom , 617 So. 2d 327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (finding the trial court improperly ordered the sale of realty to fund alimony payments because the realty was owned b......
  • Cherny v. & Concerning Ruth Ann Cherny, 17-0245
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • June 6, 2018
    ...payment, the dissolution decree has no legal impact on JSV, its assets, or its other shareholders. Contra Sandstrom v. Sandstrom, 617 So. 2d 327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (finding the trial court improperly ordered the sale of realty to fund alimony payments because the realty was owned by......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT