Hornett v. Hornett

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hornett v. Hornett

714 So. 2d 675, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9873, 1998 WL 455650

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2659

StatusPublished

This text of 714 So. 2d 675 (Hornett v. Hornett) 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

Hornett v. Hornett, 714 So. 2d 675, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9873, 1998 WL 455650 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

JACOBUS, B.W., Associate Judge.

Sandee Hornett, raises several issues in her appeal from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, only one of which we find to have merit. The record reflects that the $4000 ear loan was inadvertently assigned as a liability to each party, contrary to the trial court’s clear intent that the former wife be made liable for this expense. Because correction of this error affects the trial court’s overall scheme of equitable distribution, we reverse and remand tó permit the trial court to reconsider the matter of equitable distribution in its entirety. The ultimate distribution should be substantially equal or, if unequal, supported by a legally sufficient factual basis. Adams v. Adams, 677 So.2d 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment insofar as it [676]*676dissolves the parties’ marriage, but remand for proceedings consistent herewith.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

JACOBUS, B.W., Associate Judge.

Sandee Hornett, raises several issues in her appeal from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, only one of which we find to have merit. The record reflects that the $4000 ear loan was inadvertently assigned as a liability to each party, contrary to the trial court’s clear intent that the former wife be made liable for this expense. Because correction of this error affects the trial court’s overall scheme of equitable distribution, we reverse and remand tó permit the trial court to reconsider the matter of equitable distribution in its entirety. The ultimate distribution should be substantially equal or, if unequal, supported by a legally sufficient factual basis. Adams v. Adams, 677 So.2d 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment insofar as it [676]*676dissolves the parties’ marriage, but remand for proceedings consistent herewith.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 So. 2d 675, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9873, 1998 WL 455650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hornett-v-hornett-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack