Veiner v. Veiner, s. 77-930
| Decision Date | 28 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 77-930,77-972 and 77-1437,s. 77-930 |
| Citation | 364 So.2d 834 |
| Parties | Martin I. VEINER, Appellant, v. Joyce S. VEINER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
A. John Goshgarian, Richard A. Kanner, Miami, for appellant.
Buchbinder & Elegant and Harris J. Buchbinder, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate judge.
These appeals all arise out of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband, Martin I. Veiner, urges error in the final judgment in that the judgment awarded the wife, Joyce S. Veiner, a special equity without specifying the property of the husband to which the equity attached. The former wife has appealed the judgment claiming error upon the court's failure to award to her one-half of certain securities which were jointly held by the husband and wife prior to the dissolution. In addition, the wife urges that the award of $100 per week for support of the three children was an abuse of discretion. The husband has brought two interlocutory appeals, the first from the order allowing attorney's fees and the second from a judgment awarded to the wife's attorneys for the amount of the attorneys' fees.
This case was bitterly contested between the parties with regard to all property matters. It is clear that the trial judge was trying to do equity between the parties. Nevertheless, we must hold, under the established law, that the allowance of a special equity in the assets of the husband without specifying the res and without support in the record showing a contribution to the res is error. See Elliott v. Elliott, 343 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Rey v. Rey, 279 So.2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 252 So.2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
The wife's cross-appeals on the failure of the court to award her one-half ownership in certain jointly-held securities and her complaint that it was an abuse of discretion to award support of $100 per week for child support are not supported by the record. The judgments made by the trial court in the determination of disputed issues of fact will not be reversed by an appellate court where there is substantial support in the record for the finding of the trial court. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); and Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976).
The husband's interlocutory appeals from the judgment awarding a $12,000 attorneys' fee to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veiner v. Veiner, 84-1426
...the amount of child support, and the award of certain jointly held property to the husband. This court's opinion, Veiner v. Veiner, 364 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (Veiner I), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 77 (Fla.1979), remanded that part of the judgment which awarded the special equity to the ......
-
Bailey v. Bailey, 80-903
...action did not encroach upon the appellate court's jurisdiction to determine the validity of a prior summons), with Veiner v. Veiner, 364 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (where appeal challenges order allowing attorneys' fee, trial court is without jurisdiction to enter judgment on order); Blu......
-
Murphy v. Murphy
...was error. While the lower court did no have power to enter the order while the case was pending in this court, see Veiner v. Veiner, 364 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), it reacquired jurisdiction over the cause upon the issuance of our mandate. See Meneses v. State, 372 So.2d 1152, 1154 (Fla......
-
Maggio v. Maggio, 81-296
...1978). However, it is error for the trial judge to award a special equity without specifying the res in which it vests. Veiner v. Veiner, 364 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The $6,000 and $7,000 special equities awarded here cannot be upheld because the final judgment does not award those sp......