Holmes v. Holmes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holmes v. Holmes

676 So. 2d 506, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7043, 1996 WL 379150

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 676 So. 2d 506 (Holmes v. Holmes) 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

Holmes v. Holmes, 676 So. 2d 506, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7043, 1996 WL 379150 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Santosh Holmes, the former wife, challenges a final judgment of dissolution. Because on appeal appellant has presented no transcript or statement of the evidence introduced to the court below, we would ordinarily find no basis for disturbing the final judgment which is deemed presumptively correct. Starks v. Starks, 423 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The judgment, however, is internally inconsistent. In the judgment the trial court awards certain real property in Nepal to the former wife, but refers to this award both as lump sum alimony and as an asset for equitable distribution. We therefore remand the cause to the trial court for entry of an order or amended judgment clarifying the nature of this real property award. In clarifying this matter, the lower court has the authority to revisit the entire dissolution order, including, if appropriate, electing to retain jurisdiction, so as to fashion an order which is both internally consistent and equitable as to both parties. See, Cloud v. Cloud, 586 So.2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED for clarification.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Santosh Holmes, the former wife, challenges a final judgment of dissolution. Because on appeal appellant has presented no transcript or statement of the evidence introduced to the court below, we would ordinarily find no basis for disturbing the final judgment which is deemed presumptively correct. Starks v. Starks, 423 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The judgment, however, is internally inconsistent. In the judgment the trial court awards certain real property in Nepal to the former wife, but refers to this award both as lump sum alimony and as an asset for equitable distribution. We therefore remand the cause to the trial court for entry of an order or amended judgment clarifying the nature of this real property award. In clarifying this matter, the lower court has the authority to revisit the entire dissolution order, including, if appropriate, electing to retain jurisdiction, so as to fashion an order which is both internally consistent and equitable as to both parties. See, Cloud v. Cloud, 586 So.2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED for clarification.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 So. 2d 506, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7043, 1996 WL 379150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-holmes-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack