Barnett v. Barnett

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barnett v. Barnett

508 So. 2d 456, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1334, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8402

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1987

DocketNos. 85-2277, 4-86-1206

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 456 (Barnett v. Barnett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnett v. Barnett, 508 So. 2d 456, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1334, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8402 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This case was decided by the trial judge before the decision in Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986), concerning the consideration of retirement benefits as a marital asset. Because the husband’s retirement benefits constitute a substantial factor in the issues raised on appeal and the record is unclear as to the trial court’s consideration of those benefits, we remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings in accord with Diffen-derfer and for the entry of a supplemental final judgment reflecting the court’s findings and rulings concerning those benefits. The trial court may, at its discretion, receive further evidence and argument and, if it is determined to be appropriate, may modify any of the awards made in the final judgment in light of its reconsideration of the Diffenderfer issue. The supplemental final judgment will be subject to appeal by either party.

ANSTEAD, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case was decided by the trial judge before the decision in Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986), concerning the consideration of retirement benefits as a marital asset. Because the husband’s retirement benefits constitute a substantial factor in the issues raised on appeal and the record is unclear as to the trial court’s consideration of those benefits, we remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings in accord with Diffen-derfer and for the entry of a supplemental final judgment reflecting the court’s findings and rulings concerning those benefits. The trial court may, at its discretion, receive further evidence and argument and, if it is determined to be appropriate, may modify any of the awards made in the final judgment in light of its reconsideration of the Diffenderfer issue. The supplemental final judgment will be subject to appeal by either party.

ANSTEAD, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 456, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1334, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-barnett-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack