Carroll v. Carroll

936 So. 2d 706, 2006 WL 2265278
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 9, 2006
Docket4D05-4564
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 936 So. 2d 706 (Carroll v. Carroll) 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
Carroll v. Carroll, 936 So. 2d 706, 2006 WL 2265278 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

936 So.2d 706 (2006)

Steven CARROLL, Appellant,
v.
Cristiane Goncalves CARROLL, Appellee.

No. 4D05-4564.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

August 9, 2006.
Rehearing Denied September 13, 2006.

*707 Michael H. Gora of Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Gora, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Robert L. Bogen of the Law Offices of Robert L. Bogen, Boca Raton, for appellee.

TAYLOR, J.

Steven Carroll (Husband) appeals an award of temporary attorney's fees to Cristiane Goncalves Carroll (Wife). This award appears to be based primarily on the parties' financial affidavits. These affidavits were in the court file and were argued extensively at the hearings, without objection, but were never formally placed into evidence.

We agree with the Wife that the failure to place the financial affidavits in evidence, while technically improper, was waived by the lack of a contemporaneous objection when the Wife's counsel argued extensively as to their contents at the hearing. See Reddick v. Reddick, 728 So.2d 374, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that the rule precluding fact-finding based on unsworn statements of counsel is subject to the contemporaneous objection rule).

Our decision in Brown v. School Board of Palm Beach County, 855 So.2d 1267, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), is distinguishable because, there, the attorneys' arguments were not based on sworn affidavits contained in the court file.

We have considered the Husband's other arguments for reversal and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

Related

H.K. Development, LLC. v. Greer
32 So. 3d 178 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
936 So. 2d 706, 2006 WL 2265278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-carroll-fladistctapp-2006.