Blauvelt v. Blauvelt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blauvelt v. Blauvelt

681 So. 2d 725, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4753, 1996 WL 239290

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1996

DocketNo. 95-01286

StatusPublished

This text of 681 So. 2d 725 (Blauvelt v. Blauvelt) 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

Blauvelt v. Blauvelt, 681 So. 2d 725, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4753, 1996 WL 239290 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The husband, Barry J. Blauvelt, appeals the trial court’s final judgment entered upon the wife, Mary A. Blauvelt’s, petition for dissolution of marriage. After a review of the limited record on appeal, we find no merit in the husband’s contention that the trial court erred in awarding temporary custody of the child to the husband’s second wife. See Buckhalt v. McGhee, 632 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We find merit, however, in the husband’s contention that the trial court erred by not providing in its order that at the time the marital residence is sold that the husband would receive proper credit against the wife’s one-half of the proceeds for certain ownership expenses he is required to pay. See Breland v. Breland, 565 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therefore, we remand to the trial court with directions that the final judgment be clarified to allow the husband proper credit upon the sale of the marital residence.

Affirmed as modified.

SCHOONOVER, AC.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The husband, Barry J. Blauvelt, appeals the trial court’s final judgment entered upon the wife, Mary A. Blauvelt’s, petition for dissolution of marriage. After a review of the limited record on appeal, we find no merit in the husband’s contention that the trial court erred in awarding temporary custody of the child to the husband’s second wife. See Buckhalt v. McGhee, 632 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We find merit, however, in the husband’s contention that the trial court erred by not providing in its order that at the time the marital residence is sold that the husband would receive proper credit against the wife’s one-half of the proceeds for certain ownership expenses he is required to pay. See Breland v. Breland, 565 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Therefore, we remand to the trial court with directions that the final judgment be clarified to allow the husband proper credit upon the sale of the marital residence.

Affirmed as modified.

SCHOONOVER, AC.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 So. 2d 725, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4753, 1996 WL 239290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blauvelt-v-blauvelt-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack