Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, s. 72--1119
| Decision Date | 24 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 72--1119,72--1352,s. 72--1119 |
| Citation | 277 So.2d 43 |
| Parties | H. Carl VANDERVOORT, Jr., Appellant, v. Margaret Jean VANDERVOORT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Cushman & Cushman, Miami, for appellant.
Sams, Anderson, Alper, Spencer & Post and Frank Pridgen, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.
The above numbered appeals were filed by H. Carl Vandervoort, Jr., the defendant below, from two orders or judgments in an action for dissolution of marriage. The appeals were consolidated here.
A judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties was entered on September 27, 1971, and the court appointed a special master thereafter to take testimony and report his determination of the assets, the liabilities, and the method of distribution of the assets and liabilities of a partnership in which the parties had engaged in the business of owning, breeding and racing horses. Following evidentiary hearings thereon the master filed his report. The plaintiff wife moved the court to adopt the master's report. The defendant husband filed exceptions thereto. Among the exceptions was a contention that the master had erred in finding the partnership commenced on August 11, 1970 (as had been claimed by the wife), rather than in 1961, the year the parties were married (as had been claimed by the husband). After a hearing thereon the court entered a judgment on August 9, 1972, overruling the defendant's exceptions and adopting the master's report. The husband filed appeal No. 72--1119 therefrom.
It is the contention of the appellant that the court committed error by overruling his exception to the master's report with reference to the date of inception of the partnership. We hold that ruling of the court was not error. The master gave cogent reasons for the finding in question, and upon consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs we affirm the order of the court which adopted the master's report dealing with the property rights of the parties and entered judgment thereon.
On September 29, 1972, more than a month after the entry of the judgment relating to the property rights of the parties in their partnership, the plaintiff wife filed a motion for the court 'to make specific findings as to the assets and liabilities of the partnership based on the testimony and evidence contained in the hearings before the special master.' In that motion the plaintiff stated: 'The findings of the special master and the evidence presented in those hearings should be res judicata as to any other actions,' and alleged that the husband had instituted other actions outside the State of Florida in which he was attempting to 'increase the liabilities of the partnership and change the assets.'
Acting on that motion, over objection of the defendant that the court was without jurisdiction to change or supplement the August 9, 1972 judgment confirming the master's report covering said matters, the court entered an order on October 13, 1972, which is the subject of appeal No. 72--1352. Therein the court made findings, such as the master had made, respecting the assets and liabilities of the partnership, and on two matters which had not been covered by the master held that a residence of the parties was not a partnership asset, and that certain notes aggregating $190,000 did not constitute a liability of the partnership. The latter two findings or holdings of the court appear from the record to be without support of testimony so establishing. It appeared that the object of the plaintiff wife was to have additions made to the judgment which she could use as res judicata in opposing other litigation alleged to have been instituted by the husband elsewhere.
The matter of the assets and liabilities of the partnership had been litigated before the master, and at the time the same came before the court for judgment thereon no reason was advanced by the plaintiff wife for changing the determination thereof as made and reported by the master. On the contrary, the wife moved the court to approve and confirm the master's report. The changes therein which the husband sought through exceptions were denied, and judgment was entered confirming the report.
After that judgment relating to the property rights of the parties concerning the assets and liabilities of the partnership had become final the court was without jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Dieujuste
...981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), which expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal, Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 277 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3rd DCA), cert. denied, 287 So.2d 682 (Fla.1973). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. This case involves a post-disso......
-
Donner v. Donner
...judgment at dissolution of marriage is entered, the question of property rights is res judicata for the parties. Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, Fla.App.1973, 277 So.2d 43; Walborsky v. Walborsky, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 304; Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 53; McEachin v. McEachi......
-
Wise v. Wise
...different distribution of property rights, including the former husband's military pension benefits"); see also Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 277 So.2d 43, 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)quoting Mabson v. Christ, 96 Fla. 756, 119 So. 131, 133 (Fla.1928)("While a court of equity retains the power to mod......
-
Marriage of Wilson, In re, 2-88-0860
...Harris v. Harris (1977), 45 Ill.App.3d 820, 821, 4 Ill.Dec. 366, 360 N.E.2d 113. Petitioner relies primarily on Vandervoort v. Vandervoort (Fla.Dist.App.1973), 277 So.2d 43, in support of her contention that it was error for the court to have dismissed her second amended complaint. In Vande......