Wollman v. Wollman, 69--768
| Decision Date | 12 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--768,69--768 |
| Parties | Robert H. WOLLMAN, Appellant, v. Sylvia WOLLMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Caidin, Rothenberg, Kogan, Kornblum & Rothenberg, Miami, for appellant.
Ginsberg & Goldman, North Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
The husband Robert H. Wollman appeals from a final decree of divorce which granted him a divorce from his wife, Sylvia, but awarded her a one-half interest in certain property which was held solely in his name. He has appealed and the wife has cross-assigned certain ruling of the trial judge as error.
The record on appeal reveals that the wife met her burden of proof in establishing a special equity in this particular property. See Lindley v. Lindley, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 17; and Tanner v. Tanner, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 702.
The husband admitted that 'they both owned everything' referring to their interest in marital property and that there was no distinction between what they owned.
If a wife advances money to her husband for use in his business or for the purchase of property she may, upon proper pleadings and sufficient and proper proof, be awarded a special equity therein. See Parsons v. Parsons, 154 Fla. 299, 17 So.2d 223 (1944); Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727 (1941); Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796 (1932); Green v. Green, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 112; Volpe v. Volpe, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 534; Perine v. Perine, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 71; Wood v. Wood, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 879; and 10 Fla.Jur. Divorce, Etc., § 208. Appellant's argument for reversal on this point is insufficient.
Appellant husband argues that error was made in the award of attorneys' fees by the trial court for services rendered to the wife by her counsel. We have examined the record and briefs and find this point insufficient to warrant reversal.
The husband's last point for reversal is that there was error made in the final decree by the award to the wife of $200 per month as alimony. This is so he reasons because when the $200 alimony is added to the $350 per month he is required to pay as support for his two minor children it far exceeds his ability to pay. The wife has cross-assigned as error the order of the trial court which reduced a temporary award to her of $681 per month for alimony and child support to $550 per month for alimony and child support granted by the final decree of divorce.
There is sufficient, competent evidence in the record to sustain the award of alimony and child support granted and awarded by the trial judge in the final decree.
The wife has filed a cross-assignment of error arguing that the husband refused to answer an interrogatory or certain questions on the ground that his answers might be self-incriminating and he should, therefore, be denied any affirmative relief. We have previously ruled on this question in Simkins v. Simkins, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 724 and adhere to that decision.
I respectfully dissent from so much of the majority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walton v. Walton, 73--651
...proving a special equity. Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796; Parsons v. Parsons, supra; Banfi v. Banfi, supra; Wollman v. Wollman, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 315. And, more recently, the decisions support a trial judge's division of property jointly held by the parties when a request ......
-
Roffe v. Roffe
...with respect to that marriage-acquired parcel. See also, Scheidl v. Scheidl, 343 So.2d 963 (Fla.lst DCA 1977); Wollman v. Wollman, 235 So.2d 315 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); cf. Duncan v. Duncan, Moreover, even if a "special equity" is not technically permissible, it is apparent that the trial court ......
-
Smith v. Smith, 91-522
...3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 360 So.2d 1250 (Fla.1978); Singer v. Singer, 262 So.2d 731, 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Wollman v. Wollman, 235 So.2d 315, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Green v. Green, 228 So.2d 112, 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. denied, 237 So.2d 538 But see Dix v. Dix, 400 So.2d 1294 (F......
-
Steinhauer v. Steinhauer, 70-574
...sum alimony or to the extent that she establishes a special equity therein. Banfi v. Banfi, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 52; Wollman v. Wollman, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 315; Mays v. Mays, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 674. In determining whether or not the award in question should be considered as lum......