Estate of Clyde L. Harriger v. Harriger

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Estate of Clyde L. Harriger v. Harriger

212 So. 3d 1151, 2017 WL 1102951, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 2017

DocketCase 5D16-1708

StatusPublished

This text of 212 So. 3d 1151 (Estate of Clyde L. Harriger v. Harriger) 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

Estate of Clyde L. Harriger v. Harriger, 212 So. 3d 1151, 2017 WL 1102951, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The estate of Clyde L. Harriger (“Former Husband”) appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage regarding Former Husband and Alice Jean Rogers Harriger (“Former Wife”). Former Husband raises three issues on appeal, contending that the trial court erred in: 1) considering the subject of nonmarital property despite Former Wife’s failure to raise it in her pleadings; 2) determining that Former Wife possessed nonmarital property and categorizing two Bank of America accounts as nonmarital; and 3) failing to make factual findings regarding six Wells Fargo accounts. We affirm as to the first two issues without further discussion.

As to the third issue, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make factual findings regarding the Wells Fargo bank accounts. See Winney v. Winney, 979 So.2d 396, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“A trial court’s failure to make adequate factual findings in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage is typically reversible error because, in most circumstances, this failure precludes meaningful appellate review.”). Specifically, the trial court is directed on remand to make written findings stating whether these accounts are marital or non-marital property.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The estate of Clyde L. Harriger (“Former Husband”) appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage regarding Former Husband and Alice Jean Rogers Harriger (“Former Wife”). Former Husband raises three issues on appeal, contending that the trial court erred in: 1) considering the subject of nonmarital property despite Former Wife’s failure to raise it in her pleadings; 2) determining that Former Wife possessed nonmarital property and categorizing two Bank of America accounts as nonmarital; and 3) failing to make factual findings regarding six Wells Fargo accounts. We affirm as to the first two issues without further discussion.

As to the third issue, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make factual findings regarding the Wells Fargo bank accounts. See Winney v. Winney, 979 So.2d 396, 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“A trial court’s failure to make adequate factual findings in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage is typically reversible error because, in most circumstances, this failure precludes meaningful appellate review.”). Specifically, the trial court is directed on remand to make written findings stating whether these accounts are marital or non-marital property.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 So. 3d 1151, 2017 WL 1102951, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-clyde-l-harriger-v-harriger-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack