Benson v. Benson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Benson v. Benson

811 So. 2d 861, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4088, 2002 WL 463604

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 28, 2002

DocketNo. 5D01-116

StatusPublished

This text of 811 So. 2d 861 (Benson v. Benson) 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

Benson v. Benson, 811 So. 2d 861, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4088, 2002 WL 463604 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Following an appeal of this cause, this court reversed the final judgment of dissolution and remanded to the trial court to list and evaluate the marital assets and to reconsider the marital distribution, if appropriate, after preparing such list and making such evaluation. The court was also to reconsider alimony and/or attorney’s fees as a part of its overall evaluation. The trial court has made a good faith effort to comply with our direction but has come up short. We believe it would be in the best interest of justice that the matter be reassigned for further consideration. The new judge may, if he or she elects, hold additional hearings.

We remand to the Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit to reassign this cause and direct compliance with our original mandate.

MOTION TO ENFORCE GRANTED.

SHARP, W„ HARRIS, JJ., and LAMBERT, B., Associate Judge, concur.

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

ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Following an appeal of this cause, this court reversed the final judgment of dissolution and remanded to the trial court to list and evaluate the marital assets and to reconsider the marital distribution, if appropriate, after preparing such list and making such evaluation. The court was also to reconsider alimony and/or attorney’s fees as a part of its overall evaluation. The trial court has made a good faith effort to comply with our direction but has come up short. We believe it would be in the best interest of justice that the matter be reassigned for further consideration. The new judge may, if he or she elects, hold additional hearings.

We remand to the Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit to reassign this cause and direct compliance with our original mandate.

MOTION TO ENFORCE GRANTED.

SHARP, W„ HARRIS, JJ., and LAMBERT, B., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

811 So. 2d 861, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 4088, 2002 WL 463604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benson-v-benson-fladistctapp-2002.