Denise M. Terry v. Douglas J. Terry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Denise M. Terry v. Douglas J. Terry

174 So. 3d 639, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13803, 2015 WL 5440801

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 16, 2015

Docket4D14-2214

StatusPublished

This text of 174 So. 3d 639 (Denise M. Terry v. Douglas J. Terry) 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

Denise M. Terry v. Douglas J. Terry, 174 So. 3d 639, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13803, 2015 WL 5440801 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution. The former wife raises six arguments. We affirm without discussion on two of those arguments by concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in: (1) not awarding the former wife any costs and attorney’s fees in addition to those costs and attorney’s fees which the court granted on a temporary basis (see former wife’s argument I); and (2) not equitably valuing or dividing the former wife’s alleged loans from her parents (see former wife’s argument IV).

On the former wife’s other four arguments, the former husband concedes to those -arguments. We agree with those concessions. Therefore, we conclude the circuit court erred in: (1) equitably dividing and awarding the former husband’s New Jersey pension which the parties dissipated during the action’s pendency (see former wife’s arguments II and VI); (2) equitably dividing the parties’ furniture and furnishings where the parties stipulated that such property would not be equitably divided (see former wife’s argument III); and (3) failing to equitably value or divide the former husband’s Town of Palm Beach pension (see former wife’s argument V). We remand for the circuit court to revise the equitable distribution schedule based on these arguments only.

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

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution. The former wife raises six arguments. We affirm without discussion on two of those arguments by concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in: (1) not awarding the former wife any costs and attorney’s fees in addition to those costs and attorney’s fees which the court granted on a temporary basis (see former wife’s argument I); and (2) not equitably valuing or dividing the former wife’s alleged loans from her parents (see former wife’s argument IV).

On the former wife’s other four arguments, the former husband concedes to those -arguments. We agree with those concessions. Therefore, we conclude the circuit court erred in: (1) equitably dividing and awarding the former husband’s New Jersey pension which the parties dissipated during the action’s pendency (see former wife’s arguments II and VI); (2) equitably dividing the parties’ furniture and furnishings where the parties stipulated that such property would not be equitably divided (see former wife’s argument III); and (3) failing to equitably value or divide the former husband’s Town of Palm Beach pension (see former wife’s argument V). We remand for the circuit court to revise the equitable distribution schedule based on these arguments only.

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

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 So. 3d 639, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13803, 2015 WL 5440801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denise-m-terry-v-douglas-j-terry-fladistctapp-2015.