Case Name: William O. KUHN, Appellant, v. Maria C. KUHN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1972-04-18
Citations: 261 So. 2d 532
Docket Number: Nos. 71-528, 71-712
Parties: William O. KUHN, Appellant, v. Maria C. KUHN, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ., and WILLIS, ROBERT E., Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 261
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
William O. KUHN, Appellant, v. Maria C. KUHN, Appellee.
Nos. 71-528, 71-712.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 18, 1972.
Rehearing Denied May 24, 1972.
Cushman & Cushman, Miami, for appellant.
Stephen Butter, Miami Beach, and Ginsberg & Goldman, North Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ., and WILLIS, ROBERT E., Associate Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
These are two appeals arising from the same action. The appellant is a former husband. The first appeal (No. 71-528) is a full appeal from a final judgment dissolving appellant's marriage; the second appeal is an interlocutory appeal (No. 71-712) challenging the validity of an order entered after rendition of final judgment.
In the first appeal, the appellant urges reversal of one provision of the trial court's final judgment. This provision concerns disposition of jointly held property. The provision declares the appellee-wife to be the sole owner of a condominium apartment. This apartment belonged to the wife before marriage but was transferred to their joint names following marriage. We hold that the finding of the trial judge was correct and no error has been demonstrated. See Gay v. Gay, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 801; Hegel v. Hegel, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 212.
In the second appeal, appellant urges that the trial court's order was entered as a result of a motion addressed to the court after the time for filing a motion for rehearing had passed; it is argued that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter this order. We hold that the court had jurisdiction to amend the final judgment because the motion was properly considered as one calling- for relief pursuant to Rule 1.540, R.C.P., 31 F.S.A.
The final judgment and the order appealed are affirmed.