Dejarnatt v. Dejarnatt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dejarnatt v. Dejarnatt

8 So. 3d 397, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2175, 2009 WL 633185

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 2009

Docket1D08-1839

StatusPublished

This text of 8 So. 3d 397 (Dejarnatt v. Dejarnatt) 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

Dejarnatt v. Dejarnatt, 8 So. 3d 397, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2175, 2009 WL 633185 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Brett E. Dejarnatt, appeals an amended order granting a motion to enforce the Consent Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, which was filed by Appellee, Monica J. Dejarnatt. Appellant raises six issues on appeal, only one of which has merit. Given Appellee’s ac-knowledgement that the parties knew that Appellant would be unable to access his trust fund “free and clear” until he turned forty, we agree with Appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding statutory interest on the equitable distribution award and reverse the order as to this award. We otherwise affirm.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions to strike the statutory interest award.

DAVIS, BENTON, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Brett E. Dejarnatt, appeals an amended order granting a motion to enforce the Consent Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, which was filed by Appellee, Monica J. Dejarnatt. Appellant raises six issues on appeal, only one of which has merit. Given Appellee’s ac-knowledgement that the parties knew that Appellant would be unable to access his trust fund “free and clear” until he turned forty, we agree with Appellant that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding statutory interest on the equitable distribution award and reverse the order as to this award. We otherwise affirm.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions to strike the statutory interest award.

DAVIS, BENTON, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 So. 3d 397, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2175, 2009 WL 633185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dejarnatt-v-dejarnatt-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack