Case Name: Carol Jean NIEMANN, Petitioner, v. Gary E. NIEMANN, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-04-16
Citations: 312 So. 2d 733
Docket Number: No. 45622
Parties: Carol Jean NIEMANN, Petitioner, v. Gary E. NIEMANN, Respondent.
Judges: ADKTNS, C. J., concurs specially with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 312
Pages: 733–735

Head Matter:
Carol Jean NIEMANN, Petitioner, v. Gary E. NIEMANN, Respondent.
No. 45622.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 16, 1975.
Rehearing Denied June 1.3, 1975.
Terrence J. Russell, Ruden, Barnett, Mc-Closky, Schuster & Schmerer, Fort Laud-erdale, for petitioner.
Edward A. Perse, Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, for respondent.

Opinion:
HARDING, Circuit Judge:
By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (Niemann v. Niemann, Fla.App., 294 So.2d 415), which allegedly conflicts with a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District (Walton v. Walton, Fla.App., 290 So.2d 110), on the same point of law. In the instant case the court below held:
"The court's authority to effect a change in the title to the property of the parties in a dissolution of marriage is restricted to an award of lump sum alimony, a determination of a special equity, a partition of the property, or a division based upon an agreement of the parties."
In Walton v. Walton, supra, the District Court of Appeal in its opinion said:
" . . .it appears that today a trial judge is authorized to make a division of real property even if held in an estate by the entireties, if such a division is sought by one of the parties and tried without objection." 290 So.2d at 112.
The court went on to say:
"In reality, what the appellant is complaining about in the instant appeal is not that the trial court attempted to divide the jointly held property but that he abused his discretion in the manner of the division."
Therefore, it appears that the statement made by the District Court in Walton regarding the authority of a court to effect a division of real property does not constitute the decision of the court.
We have to look at the decision, rather than a conflict in the opinion, to find that we have jurisdiction. Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So.2d 823 (Fla.1970).
After having considered this matter and having heard oral argument, we find no conflict of decisions and, therefore, the writ is discharged and the petition is dismissed.
ADKTNS, C. J., concurs specially with opinion.
McCAIN, J., McCORD, District Judge, and RUDD, Circuit Judge, concur.