Winn v. Winn
| Decision Date | 13 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-CA-410,91-CA-410 |
| Citation | 589 So.2d 1137 |
| Parties | Mary Graham WINN v. Thomas Pryor WINN. 589 So.2d 1137 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
H. Craig Cabral, Harry Craig Cabral, Inc., A.P.L.C., Metairie, for plaintiff-appellant Mary Graham Winn.
Before KLIEBERT, C.J., and WICKER and GOTHARD, JJ.
This matter originated as a suit for a separation filed by Mary Elizabeth Graham Winn against her husband, Thomas Pryor Winn, on December 8, 1987. After considerable court appearances with respect to such ancillary matters as child custody, support, visitation, etc., a petition was filed by Mrs. Winn on October 27, 1988 wherein she sought judgment "decreeing that there be an accounting and liquidation of the community property held between them, in the proportion of a one-half interest to each."
Following the filing of descriptive lists of assets and other pleadings, a hearing was held which consumed three days and which resulted in a judgment dated June 21, 1990, the decretal portion of which reads as follows:
"IT IS ORDERED that the State tax refund in the amount of $1,735 be divided equally between the parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Tax Refund in the amount of $10,788 be divided equally between the parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeds from the property damage settlement from Shell in the amount of $8,983.50 be divided equally between the parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas Pryor Winn pay Mary Graham Winn the sum of $4,082, representing her 1/2 interest in surgical instruments in his possession.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas Pryor Winn pay Mary Graham Winn the sum of $6,300, representing her 1/2 interest in his IRA.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary Graham Winn pay Thomas Winn the sum of $3,500, representing his 1/2 interest in her IRA.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas Winn pay Mary Graham Winn the sum of $18,500, representing her 1/2 interest from the sale of "Tommy Winn & Associates, Inc."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the partition of the Condominium located at 18-E Rue Chardonnay, Kenner, La. be deferred pending furnishing of proof of value thereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas Winn pay to Mary Graham Winn the sum of $10,130.10, representing her 1/2 interest in the condominium rental.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the loan from Whitney National Bank is not a community debt.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas Winn is denied reimbursement for repairs made to the condominium.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary Graham Winn pay to Thomas Winn the sum of $401.08, representing her 1/2 indebtedness on the Hurwitz-Mintz bill paid by him.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary Graham Winn pay Thomas Winn the sum of $81.42, representing her 1/2 indebtedness on the Sears bill.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary Graham Winn pay Thomas Winn the sum of $1,085, representing her 1/2 indebtedness on the Condominium mortgage payments.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary Graham Winn pay Thomas Winn the sum of $315, representing her 1/2 indebtedness on the house note.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary Graham Winn pay Thomas Winn the sum of $522.41, representing her 1/2 indebtedness to Chardonnay Condominium Association.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mary Graham Winn pay Thomas Winn the sum of $1,933.78, representing her 1/2 indebtedness for the condominium assessment fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be divided equally between the parties."
Following the handing down of the above judgment, counsel for Mr. Winn applied for a new trial which was granted, but restricted to re-argument only as to limited matters. This resulted in a judgment dated November 30, 1990 which reads as follows:
"The judgment is amended in two particulars:
Its award of $10,130.10 to Mary Graham Winn as her half of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Review of local administrative actions by common law certiorari after Pleasures II v. City of Sarasota: what's a local government got to do to get reviewed around here?
...principles is in order. The requirements of a quasi-judicial hearing were well laid out by the Third DCA in Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So. 2d 1137, 1340-41 (Fla. 3d DCA Quasi-judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure. Nonetheless, certain standards ......