Inna Bell v. Chad Bell

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 17, 2025
Docket5D2023-2290
StatusPublished

This text of Inna Bell v. Chad Bell (Inna Bell v. Chad Bell) 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
Inna Bell v. Chad Bell, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-2290 LT Case No. 2020-DR-3951 _____________________________

INNA BELL,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

CHAD BELL,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. James E. Kallaher, Judge.

Adam P. Rowe, David P. Grigaltchik, and Boris Galustov, of Grigaltchik & Galustov, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant/Cross- Appellee.

Michael J. Korn, of Korn & Zehmer, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

January 17, 2025

PER CURIAM.

Inna Bell (“Former Wife”) appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage with minor children (“Final Judgment”). Chad Bell (“Former Husband”) cross-appeals. We affirm in all respects except as to a $10,009.00 Bank of America loan that was not included in the Final Judgment. On cross-appeal, Former Husband argues that he was not credited with paying the $10,009.00 Bank of America loan on Former Wife’s vehicle. At the final hearing, the parties agreed Former Husband was responsible for and was to be credited with paying this marital liability. However, the Final Judgment failed to account for it.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to credit Former Husband with paying the $10,009.00 Bank of America loan. See Veith v. Veith, 315 So. 3d 1259, 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“[N]otwithstanding the trial court’s wide discretion in dissolution matters, this court must correct mathematical errors made by the trial court. . . . Thus, remand is required for recalculation . . . .” (alteration in original) (quoting Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So. 2d 499, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001))). In all other respects we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

SOUD, KILBANE, and PRATT, JJ., concur.

2 _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

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

Related

Doyle v. Doyle
789 So. 2d 499 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Inna Bell v. Chad Bell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inna-bell-v-chad-bell-fladistctapp-2025.