Holloman v. Holloman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holloman v. Holloman

544 So. 2d 249, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1167, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2580, 1989 WL 48089

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1240

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 544 So. 2d 249 (Holloman v. Holloman) 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

Holloman v. Holloman, 544 So. 2d 249, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1167, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2580, 1989 WL 48089 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL, Judge.

This appeal has been taken from the final order of the trial court which adjudicated the parties’ rights and obligations concerning the support and custody of their daughter, Sarah. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering Charles Robert Holloman to submit to the court and to his former wife, Joella Finney Holloman, periodic affidavits disclosing his personal financial status as well as the financial status of his professional corporation. Charles contends that the order is improper because it imposes upon him a continuing obligation to provide discovery when in fact there is no litigation pending between the parties. We agree and therefore we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order directing Charles to submit periodic financial affidavits. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part. .

ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur. •

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

DANIEL, Judge.

This appeal has been taken from the final order of the trial court which adjudicated the parties’ rights and obligations concerning the support and custody of their daughter, Sarah. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering Charles Robert Holloman to submit to the court and to his former wife, Joella Finney Holloman, periodic affidavits disclosing his personal financial status as well as the financial status of his professional corporation. Charles contends that the order is improper because it imposes upon him a continuing obligation to provide discovery when in fact there is no litigation pending between the parties. We agree and therefore we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order directing Charles to submit periodic financial affidavits. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part. .

ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 So. 2d 249, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1167, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2580, 1989 WL 48089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloman-v-holloman-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack