From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greenberg v. Greenberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 10, 1997
698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

reversing and remanding attorneys' fees award despite lack of transcript where order failed to contain findings as to the hourly rate or the number of hours reasonably expended

Summary of this case from Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Anderson
See 6 Summaries

Opinion

Case No. 96-2647

September 10, 1997.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Kathleen A. Kearney, Judge; L.T. Case No. 95-9879(36)(91).

Walter M. Dingwall of Law Office of Walter M. Dingwall, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

David J. Block of Law Offices of Singer Block, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it included the furnishings given to her by her parents and her engagement ring as marital assets in equitable distribution. We reverse and remand because her engagement ring is non-marital property.

About one year prior to marriage, appellee gave appellant a diamond engagement ring. Three months before the wedding, appellant's parents purchased several pieces of furniture. The furniture was delivered to appellant's apartment after the parties were married. The trial court found that appellant's parents intended the furniture to be a gift for both parties as spouses. The court also found that the engagement ring was an interspousal gift.

First, we hold that there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the furniture was intended to be a wedding gift. See Gainesville Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Carter, 123 So.2d 336 (Fla. 1960). Next, appellee misplaces his reliance on Gill v. Shively, 320 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), because here, the parties married. The trial court should not have included the engagement ring as a marital asset.See Melvik v. Melvik, 669 So.2d 328, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Accordingly, we reverse the equitable distribution provisions of the final judgment. We remand and instruct the trial court to conduct further hearings, if necessary, and to redistribute marital assets without inclusion of the engagement ring.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

STONE, C.J., DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

Greenberg v. Greenberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 10, 1997
698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

reversing and remanding attorneys' fees award despite lack of transcript where order failed to contain findings as to the hourly rate or the number of hours reasonably expended

Summary of this case from Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Anderson

noting that Rowe findings are mandatory and where an order lacks such findings, the lack of a transcript does not preclude appellate review because reversible error is apparent on the face of the order

Summary of this case from Graham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

noting that Rowe findings are mandatory

Summary of this case from Moyle v. Parkland Condominium Ass'n

stating that Rowe findings are mandatory

Summary of this case from Bader v. Meros, Smith Olney

stating that Rowe findings are mandatory

Summary of this case from Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners'

noting that Rowe findings are mandatory

Summary of this case from Bayer v. Global Renaissance
Case details for

Greenberg v. Greenberg

Case Details

Full title:JAMI ROBIN GREENBERG, APPELLANT, v. ADAM S. GREENBERG, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 10, 1997

Citations

698 So. 2d 938 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Julia v. Ramos-Baez

Nevertheless, four of our sister courts have held that Rowe findings must be made in writing and that,…

Wolfe v. Nazaire

It is mandatory that a trial court's order awarding attorney's fees set forth findings as to the time…

27 Citing Cases