Elliott v. Elliott

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Elliott v. Elliott

666 So. 2d 276, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 304, 1996 WL 15489

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1720

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 666 So. 2d 276 (Elliott v. Elliott) 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

Elliott v. Elliott, 666 So. 2d 276, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 304, 1996 WL 15489 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee has filed a motion to remand, conceding that the trial court has erred in the final judgment of dissolution.

The points raised by the appellant and the authority supporting reversal are the following: (1) the trial court erred in ordering the marital home sold and the proceeds divided, absent a prayer for partition, Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So.2d 37, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 1309 (Fla.1991); (2) the trial court departed from the child support guidelines without providing written reasons explaining why payment of the guidelines amount was not justified, see § 61.30(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993); Jones v. Jones, 636 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Dehler v. Dehler, 648 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); (3) the trial court erred in not awarding shared parental responsibility, as there was no finding that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child, see § 61.13(2)(b)(2), Fla.Stat. (1993).

Upon appellee’s concession of error, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

STONE, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee has filed a motion to remand, conceding that the trial court has erred in the final judgment of dissolution.

The points raised by the appellant and the authority supporting reversal are the following: (1) the trial court erred in ordering the marital home sold and the proceeds divided, absent a prayer for partition, Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So.2d 37, 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 1309 (Fla.1991); (2) the trial court departed from the child support guidelines without providing written reasons explaining why payment of the guidelines amount was not justified, see § 61.30(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993); Jones v. Jones, 636 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Dehler v. Dehler, 648 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); (3) the trial court erred in not awarding shared parental responsibility, as there was no finding that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child, see § 61.13(2)(b)(2), Fla.Stat. (1993).

Upon appellee’s concession of error, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

STONE, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

666 So. 2d 276, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 304, 1996 WL 15489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-elliott-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack