Cabeza v. Cabeza

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cabeza v. Cabeza

358 So. 2d 1168, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15997

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 23, 1978

DocketNo. 77-416

StatusPublished

This text of 358 So. 2d 1168 (Cabeza v. Cabeza) 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

Cabeza v. Cabeza, 358 So. 2d 1168, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15997 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, respondent below, brings this appeal from an order on petition for modification of final decree awarding appellee, petitioner below, the exclusive use and possession of the marital home and requiring appellant to pay the mortgage payments on the home.

After a careful review of the entire record, we are of the opinion that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order appealed and that, even if it had jurisdiction, appellee was not entitled to possession of the home. See Nahoom v. Nahoom, 341 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Church v. Church, 338 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Collazo v. Collazo, 318 So.2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 277 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed.

Reversed.

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

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, respondent below, brings this appeal from an order on petition for modification of final decree awarding appellee, petitioner below, the exclusive use and possession of the marital home and requiring appellant to pay the mortgage payments on the home.

After a careful review of the entire record, we are of the opinion that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order appealed and that, even if it had jurisdiction, appellee was not entitled to possession of the home. See Nahoom v. Nahoom, 341 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Church v. Church, 338 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So.2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Collazo v. Collazo, 318 So.2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Vandervoort v. Vandervoort, 277 So.2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 So. 2d 1168, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabeza-v-cabeza-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack