McCready v. McCready

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCready v. McCready

301 So. 2d 804, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8620

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 1974

DocketNo. 73-1319

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 So. 2d 804 (McCready v. McCready) 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

McCready v. McCready, 301 So. 2d 804, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8620 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon an examination of the record on appeal and the briefs we are of the opinion that the final judgment reflects an attempt to effectuate a property settlement between parties to a divorce actipn in the absence of an agreement between the parties or appropriate pleadings; such an adjudication is beyond the authority of the trial court. [805]*805Niemann v. Niemann, Fla.App.1974, 294 So.2d 415; Harder v. Harder, Fla.App. 1972, 264 So.2d 476; Wilbur v. Wilbur, Third District Court of Appeal, 299 So.2d 99, opinion filed June 28, 1974. Although we find no error with the final judgment in any other respect and would have no hesitancy in affirming we have no way of knowing whether the other monetary awards contained in the final judgment, i.e., child support, attorney’s fees, etc., were in any way predicated upon or influenced by the disposition of the property between the parties. Accordingly, in order to enable the trial judge to review (and reinstate or alter) these awards, that portion of the final judgment pertaining to such monetary awards is also vacated and the cause remanded for further consideration in accordance with this opinion; in all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and MAGER and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon an examination of the record on appeal and the briefs we are of the opinion that the final judgment reflects an attempt to effectuate a property settlement between parties to a divorce actipn in the absence of an agreement between the parties or appropriate pleadings; such an adjudication is beyond the authority of the trial court. [805]*805Niemann v. Niemann, Fla.App.1974, 294 So.2d 415; Harder v. Harder, Fla.App. 1972, 264 So.2d 476; Wilbur v. Wilbur, Third District Court of Appeal, 299 So.2d 99, opinion filed June 28, 1974. Although we find no error with the final judgment in any other respect and would have no hesitancy in affirming we have no way of knowing whether the other monetary awards contained in the final judgment, i.e., child support, attorney’s fees, etc., were in any way predicated upon or influenced by the disposition of the property between the parties. Accordingly, in order to enable the trial judge to review (and reinstate or alter) these awards, that portion of the final judgment pertaining to such monetary awards is also vacated and the cause remanded for further consideration in accordance with this opinion; in all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and MAGER and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 So. 2d 804, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccready-v-mccready-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack