Kohl v. Rammacca

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kohl v. Rammacca

257 So. 3d 171

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 16, 2018

DocketCase No. 5D17-2906

StatusPublished

This text of 257 So. 3d 171 (Kohl v. Rammacca) 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

Kohl v. Rammacca, 257 So. 3d 171 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*172The former wife, Kristen Kohl, appeals an order granting in part and denying in part her amended motion to enforce. We agree that the trial court improperly awarded a setoff of $871 for dental bills paid by the former husband, Brent Rammacca. Pursuant to the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the former husband was obligated to pay these bills. We further agree that the trial court improperly awarded a setoff of $2896.06 for monies voluntarily paid by the former husband for the purchase of a motor vehicle for one of the parties' minor children. See Onley v. Onley , 540 So.2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that former husband was not entitled to credit of $2000 which represented cost of automobile given by former husband to parties' teenage son). The trial court's order is otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.

EVANDER, BERGER and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

*172The former wife, Kristen Kohl, appeals an order granting in part and denying in part her amended motion to enforce. We agree that the trial court improperly awarded a setoff of $871 for dental bills paid by the former husband, Brent Rammacca. Pursuant to the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the former husband was obligated to pay these bills. We further agree that the trial court improperly awarded a setoff of $2896.06 for monies voluntarily paid by the former husband for the purchase of a motor vehicle for one of the parties' minor children. See Onley v. Onley , 540 So.2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that former husband was not entitled to credit of $2000 which represented cost of automobile given by former husband to parties' teenage son). The trial court's order is otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED.

EVANDER, BERGER and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 So. 3d 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohl-v-rammacca-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack