Hernandez v. Hernandez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hernandez v. Hernandez

168 So. 3d 350, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10843, 2015 WL 4366533

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 2015

DocketNo. 5D14-3061

StatusPublished

This text of 168 So. 3d 350 (Hernandez v. Hernandez) 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

Hernandez v. Hernandez, 168 So. 3d 350, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10843, 2015 WL 4366533 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Hernandez timely appeals an Order After Appellate Remand. The trial court properly determined the issues within the scope of the remand, and we find no error in the trial court’s rulings. Appellant also seeks reversal with directions that the trial court consider new issues as part of the remand hearing. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to handle issues raised in Appellant’s supplemental petition separately, after determining the remand issues. Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to Appellant’s ability to have the issues raised in [351]*351his supplemental petition decided by the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON, C.J., EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Hernandez timely appeals an Order After Appellate Remand. The trial court properly determined the issues within the scope of the remand, and we find no error in the trial court’s rulings. Appellant also seeks reversal with directions that the trial court consider new issues as part of the remand hearing. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to handle issues raised in Appellant’s supplemental petition separately, after determining the remand issues. Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to Appellant’s ability to have the issues raised in [351]*351his supplemental petition decided by the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON, C.J., EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 3d 350, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10843, 2015 WL 4366533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-hernandez-fladistctapp-2015.