Smith v. Smith
| Citation | 464 So.2d 1287,10 Fla. L. Weekly 627 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1828,83-1828 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 627 Alexander SMITH, Appellant, v. Svetlana SMITH, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Page 1287
v.
Svetlana SMITH, Appellee.
Fifth District.
Page 1288
Edward C. Beshara of Leemis & Bolves, Winter Park, for appellant.
Wallace F. Stalnaker, Jr., Casselberry, for appellee.
COWART, Judge.
This case involves the right of a co-tenant to rental from another co-tenant.
In her dissolution complaint the wife prayed for exclusive possession of the marital home or in the alternative that it be partitioned. The final judgment awarded the wife the exclusive possession of the marital home until the youngest child reached the age of eighteen, or the wife remarried, moved out of the house or the house was sold by mutual agreement. During the marriage the title to the house had been held as an estate by the entireties and, upon dissolution of the marriage the parties became tenants in common by virtue of section 689.15, Florida Statutes. The wife remarried on November 27, 1982, and her new husband moved in. By virtue of the occurrence of that condition subsequent the wife's right to exclusive possession of the marital home expired at that time. The ex-husband filed a petition for rule to show cause why the former wife should not be held in contempt 1 and also requested that the wife be ordered to pay rental while she remained in the former marital home. The wife sought to have the former husband held in contempt. After hearing, the court found neither party in contempt but ordered the house sold. The court also denied the husband's motion for rental and the husband appeals citing Adkins v. Edwards, 317 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). We affirm.
Adkins was a partition action, not a contempt proceeding. A motion for a civil contempt order may be a proper method of initiating a proceeding to enforce the provisions of some prior court order but it is not the proper pleading to initiate a partition action. That portion of the final judgment herein that provides that upon the elimination of exclusive possession "the house shall then be sold" is surplusage and somewhat of a gratuity because when the right of exclusive possession by the wife expired
Page 1289
either tenant had the right to have a partition. That right exists by virtue of law (chapter 64, Florida Statutes) and not because of the provision in the final judgment. The circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction to partition jointly owned property when...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Dieujuste
...of which is at issue in the present case. See Condrey. Either tenant in common has the right to partition. Strauss; Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The property does not have to be divided fifty percent to each owner. Section 64.041, Florida Statutes, contemplates that t......
-
Fredericks v. Sturgis
...Johnson. Petitioner also argues civil contempt cases must be initiated by a motion, not by a rule to show cause. In Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), this court stated in dicta that a motion for civil contempt may be a proper method to initiate a proceeding to enforce the ......
-
Krumsick v. Krumsick, 86-954
...matter jurisdiction to partition jointly-owned property only when that jurisdiction is invoked by proper pleadings. Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Landay v. Landay, 400 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), opinion modified in part, 429 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1983); Rankin v. Rankin, 2......
-
Turner v. Turner
...the property. The trial court granted the husband's motion for judgment on the pleadings based upon the authority of Smith v. Smith, 464 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The ruling in Smith is, however, distinguishable. In Smith, the wife was granted exclusive use and possession of the marit......