Bonura v. Bonura

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bonura v. Bonura

546 So. 2d 1120, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1666, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3857, 1989 WL 75756

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1678

StatusPublished

This text of 546 So. 2d 1120 (Bonura v. Bonura) 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

Bonura v. Bonura, 546 So. 2d 1120, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1666, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3857, 1989 WL 75756 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in all points raised on appeal, except the award of exclusive possession of the marital residence to the wife. We reverse that award because of the lack of any evidentiary support for it in this case. Although the trial court has the discretion to award exclusive use of the marital home as part of the discharge of the child support obligation of the non-custodial parent, Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), there is no evidence in this record to justify such an award when the wife and minor child of this short term marriage had removed themselves from the residence over a year prior to the final judgment. No testimony was elicited that it was in the best interests of the child, financially or otherwise, to move back into the residence.

This reversal is without prejudice to the wife to seek relief through modification proceedings, if that relief is appropriate because of changed circumstances.

WALDEN, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in all points raised on appeal, except the award of exclusive possession of the marital residence to the wife. We reverse that award because of the lack of any evidentiary support for it in this case. Although the trial court has the discretion to award exclusive use of the marital home as part of the discharge of the child support obligation of the non-custodial parent, Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), there is no evidence in this record to justify such an award when the wife and minor child of this short term marriage had removed themselves from the residence over a year prior to the final judgment. No testimony was elicited that it was in the best interests of the child, financially or otherwise, to move back into the residence.

This reversal is without prejudice to the wife to seek relief through modification proceedings, if that relief is appropriate because of changed circumstances.

WALDEN, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 1120, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1666, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3857, 1989 WL 75756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonura-v-bonura-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack