Case ID: so2d_316/html/0638-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM. BOYER, Chief Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lola M. MARTIN, Appellant, v. Curtis D. MARTIN, Appellee.
    No. X-5.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    June 17, 1975.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 26, 1975.
    Gregory M. Anchors, and James E. Moore, Moore & Anchors, Valparaiso, for appellant.
    G. Robert Barron, Smith, Grimsley, Barron & Remington, Fort Walton Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

RAWLS, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and MILLS, JJ., concur.

On Petition for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s petition for rehearing by which she complains of the award of a special equity and attorney’s fees in favor of her husband is denied.

Denied.

RAWLS and MILLS, JJ., concur.

BOYER, C. J., specially concurs.

BOYER, Chief Judge

(concurring specially) .

The panel of this Court which originally heard this dissolution of marriage case was comprised of Chief Judge Rawls, Judge Johnson and Judge Mills. Following oral argument a per curiam affirmance was entered, concurred in by the entire panel. Judge Johnson has since retired. The appellant filed a petition for rehearing subsequent to Judge Johnson’s retirement whereupon I was assigned as a substitute in the place and stead of Judge Johnson.

My examination of the record in this case leads me to the conclusion that had I been sitting as the trial judge, I would have awarded the appellee a much larger special equity than that awarded by the trial judge and affirmed by this Court’s prior opinion. Further, had the appellee filed a motion for rehearing in this appeal seeking a rehearing as to his initial allegations based on his cross assignments of error, as to inadequacy of the award of the special equity and attorney’s fees, I would be inclined to the view that such should be granted. However, the appellee has filed no motion for rehearing; therefore since it appears that the appellant has been treated more than fairly, I join in denial of her petition.