Kelly v. Kelly

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kelly v. Kelly

898 So. 2d 1096, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3953

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 2005

DocketNos. 5D03-4188, 5D04-2308

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 898 So. 2d 1096 (Kelly v. Kelly) 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

Kelly v. Kelly, 898 So. 2d 1096, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3953 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this divorce case, Appellant challenges the trial court’s rulings on a variety of issues. We affirm on all but two points: First, the lower court erred in its calculation of Appellant’s share of the marital property. Appellant was awarded $858,147.93 as equitable distribution. As Appellee concedes on appeal, the correct equitable distribution award to Appellant, based on the findings of fact made by the trial judge, should have been $963,728.10. Secondly, the lower court never addressed Appellant’s contention that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable due to a lack of full disclosure, duress or undue influence. Although conflicting evidence was presented on this point, the court expressed the view that a resolution of this disputed issue was unnecessary. This was error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

THOMPSON, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this divorce case, Appellant challenges the trial court’s rulings on a variety of issues. We affirm on all but two points: First, the lower court erred in its calculation of Appellant’s share of the marital property. Appellant was awarded $858,147.93 as equitable distribution. As Appellee concedes on appeal, the correct equitable distribution award to Appellant, based on the findings of fact made by the trial judge, should have been $963,728.10. Secondly, the lower court never addressed Appellant’s contention that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable due to a lack of full disclosure, duress or undue influence. Although conflicting evidence was presented on this point, the court expressed the view that a resolution of this disputed issue was unnecessary. This was error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

THOMPSON, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

898 So. 2d 1096, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-kelly-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack