Bailey v. Bailey

227 So. 3d 768, 2017 WL 4583015
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 16, 2017·No. CASE NO. 1D17-453·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this post-dissolution appeal, we agree with the former wife that the trial court erred in requiring the parties to equally split the responsibility of transportation for timesharing because that issue was not pled or tried by consent. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the challenged order. In all other respects, we affirm the order.1

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bailey v. Bailey, 227 So. 3d 768, 2017 WL 4583015 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

227 So. 3d 768 (Bailey v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

JEKTOR AYALA v. JARISEL VEGA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2023