Cowart v. Cowart

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cowart v. Cowart

390 So. 2d 193, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18109

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 26, 1980

DocketNo. UU-86

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 390 So. 2d 193 (Cowart v. Cowart) 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

Cowart v. Cowart, 390 So. 2d 193, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18109 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s judgment on the first issue presented by this appeal, i. e., whether the court erred in awarding the husband a special equity in the wife’s interest in certain notes and mortgages and a contract for deed, is AFFIRMED. We do not pass on the merits of the parties’ other contentions because the trial court has had no opportunity to consider the merits in the light of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). In order that the trial court may [194]*194have that opportunity, we REVERSE the judgment of January 20, 1980 insofar as it deals with money and property issues other than the issue on which we have approved the trial court’s judgment, and we REMAND the case for further consideration by the trial court.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

McCORD, ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s judgment on the first issue presented by this appeal, i. e., whether the court erred in awarding the husband a special equity in the wife’s interest in certain notes and mortgages and a contract for deed, is AFFIRMED. We do not pass on the merits of the parties’ other contentions because the trial court has had no opportunity to consider the merits in the light of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). In order that the trial court may [194]*194have that opportunity, we REVERSE the judgment of January 20, 1980 insofar as it deals with money and property issues other than the issue on which we have approved the trial court’s judgment, and we REMAND the case for further consideration by the trial court.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

McCORD, ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 So. 2d 193, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowart-v-cowart-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack