Cohen v. Cohen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cohen v. Cohen

661 So. 2d 123, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10483, 1995 WL 584225

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cohen v. Cohen. Read the opinion of the Court — 629 So. 2d 909 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 5, 1995·No. No. 94-486·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our examination of the record and argument of counsel, we agree with the husband that the trial court erred in requiring the husband to pay all of the prospective Hillel education costs for the children. Instead, the trial court should have held each party responsible for payment of one-half the costs thereof. The other points are not preserved or are without merit.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Based upon our examination of the record and argument of counsel, we agree with the husband that the trial court erred in requiring the husband to pay all of the prospective Hillel education costs for the children. Instead, the trial court should have held each party responsible for payment of one-half the costs thereof. The other points are not preserved or are without merit.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded.

Cohen v. Cohen, 661 So. 2d 123, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10483, 1995 WL 584225 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

661 So. 2d 123 (Cohen v. Cohen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.