Craig v. Craig

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Craig v. Craig

695 So. 2d 499, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6294, 1997 WL 312139

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3935

StatusPublished

This text of 695 So. 2d 499 (Craig v. Craig) 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

Craig v. Craig, 695 So. 2d 499, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6294, 1997 WL 312139 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Former Wife appeals a final judgment of the trial court equitably distributing the parties’ assets and liabilities, establishing child visitation, and denying her request for attorney fees. As to the denial of attorney fees and the requirement that the parties comply with the Twelfth Judicial Circuit visitation schedule, no abuse of discretion is shown, and we affirm. However, as to the equitable distribution scheme, we must reverse and remand because the trial court diminished the parties’ marital assets with non-marital debts incurred after the established date of valuation without findings that might support this ruling.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Former Wife appeals a final judgment of the trial court equitably distributing the parties’ assets and liabilities, establishing child visitation, and denying her request for attorney fees. As to the denial of attorney fees and the requirement that the parties comply with the Twelfth Judicial Circuit visitation schedule, no abuse of discretion is shown, and we affirm. However, as to the equitable distribution scheme, we must reverse and remand because the trial court diminished the parties’ marital assets with non-marital debts incurred after the established date of valuation without findings that might support this ruling.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 499, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6294, 1997 WL 312139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-v-craig-fladistctapp-1997.