Saviteer v. McAdoo, 74--906
| Decision Date | 02 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--906,74--906 |
| Citation | 310 So.2d 28 |
| Parties | Florence K. SAVITEER, Appellant, v. Dolores McADOO, Executrix of the Estate of Raymond H. Saviteer, Deceased, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Steven L. Sommerfield, Hazen & Isphording, Venice, for appellant.
Robert J. DeBoer, Williams & DeBoer, Venice, for appellee.
Appellant-wife appeals from an order of dissolution of marriage raising five grounds. Of these we need only discuss two.
The first concerns the marital home, a condominium owned by the entireties. The final judgment awarded the husband 'exclusive use and possession' of the aforesaid condominium 'until his death, remarriage, or until he moves, or until the property is sold, whichever is sooner.' We need not decide, at this juncture, just what sort of an estate, if any, was given to the husband by this award since the husband has died pending this appeal and his executrix has been substituted in his stead. But we think we ought to comment thereon for future guidance.
The granting of exclusive Possession of entireties property to one of the parties in a final judgment of dissolution is, we think, anathema unless it either takes the form of a lump sum alimony award or is so awarded to a wife and mother of minor children of whom she has custody so as to enforce the husband-father's obligation to support and maintain the children. Neither was the case here. Likewise, if it were intended by the final judgment herein that the husband be given a life estate, which both parties seem to think but with which we disagree, it is equally ineffective. We are aware of no rule of law which would authorize the granting of a life estate under the circumstances here absent a finding of special equity. No such finding was made.
In any case, whatever interest was awarded husband, we think it propitious to say here, and we so hold, that the final judgment did not change the statutory legal effect of the judgment of dissolution on the aforesaid entireties property. 1 That is to say, upon the judgment of dissolution the parties owned the same as tenants in common.
Concerning, now, appellant's only reversible point, she contests the finding of a special equity in favor of the husband to the extent of $1,250 in a certain barbershop, a one-half interest of which she purchased and in which she is presently employed as a barber. The only evidence of such special equity is that the wife took $2,500 out of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Duncan
...with Watson v. Watson, 324 So.2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), Ranes v. Ranes, 311 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), and Saviteer v. McAdoo, 310 So.2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), concerning the award of exclusive possession has been resolved in part by our express disapproval of Saviteer and Ranes in McDo......
-
Lange v. Lange, 76-2681
...DCA 1966), when possession accompanies the award of the husband's interest in the home as part of lump sum alimony, Saviteer v. McAdoo, 310 So.2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Coalla v. Coalla, 330 So.2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), or where special equities exist in favor of the wife which support her......
-
McDonald v. McDonald
...346 So.2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), because of conflict with Ranes v. Ranes, 311 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) and Saviteer v. McAdoo, 310 So.2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), In Saviteer, a party to a divorce proceeding was awarded exclusive possession of the marital home, previou......
-
Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 76--460
...to whom the husband would owe child support obligations. See also Coalla v. Coalla, 330 So.2d 802 (Fla.2nd DCA 1976); Saviteer v. McAdoo, 310 So.2d 28 (Fla.2nd DCA 1975); Ranes v. Ranes, 311 So.2d 370 (Fla.2nd DCA 1975); Reisman v. Reisman, 314 So.2d 783 (Fla.3rd DCA 1975). The award of per......