436 So. 2d 283 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1983
Lead Opinion
This is an appeal in a marriage dissolution case. We affirm the judgment in all respects except failure to grant the prayer for special equity in the marital home. It is clear from the evidence that funds unconnected with the marriage were used to purchase the home. The cross-appellant (husband) sold his separately owned house and commercial building in Wisconsin and applied the money to the purchase of the Florida home which was jointly owned. Under those circumstances the husband is entitled to a special equity in the property. Weiss v. Weiss, 390 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The judgment is affirmed in all respects except the paragraph which denies the husband his special equity, which paragraph is reversed, and this cause is remanded for determination of that special equity and judgment thereon.
AFFIRMED in part REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
Concurrence in Part
concurring and dissenting in part.
I concur in the affirmance of this case in all respects except the lower court’s denial of attorney fees for the wife. At the time of the dissolution the wife’s only income was temporary alimony of $200.00 per week — considerably less the $681.00 established in the record as her current weekly expenses. The husband’s gross weekly income was $2,609.07, and his net was $1,292.06, after deducting the temporary alimony, alimony for a prior wife, and support for an adult daughter. The wife’s financial affidavit disclosed modest liquid assets — $8,000.00 in a Hutton account and $10,000.00 in a revocable trust. The husband’s financial affidavit disclosed various accounts totalling $49,596.24, and a $9,000.00 IRA. From these circumstances one cannot reasonably conclude the parties have a similar ability to secure competent legal counsel. Nichols v. Nichols, 418 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fried v. Fried, 390 So.2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Mahoney v. Mahoney, 380 So.2d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Melton v. Melton, 251 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
