McHugh v. McHugh

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McHugh v. McHugh

752 So. 2d 1285, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3310, 2000 WL 290086

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 21, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-1261

StatusPublished

This text of 752 So. 2d 1285 (McHugh v. McHugh) 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

McHugh v. McHugh, 752 So. 2d 1285, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3310, 2000 WL 290086 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant J. Michael McHugh appeals the trial court’s decisions to award primary residential custody of the parties’ two minor children to appellee Anita M. McHugh, and to not require appellee to pay taxes and- insurance on property owned by the parties as tenants by the entireties during their marriage. We find that the record provided to this court is inadequate to support appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding appellee primary residential custody. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). We further conclude that the second issue is without merit. See Taber v. Taber, 626 So.2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So.2d 205, 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (mutual obligation to pay charges placed upon property applies to property held as tenants in common, as opposed to tenants by the entireties, wherein either party may be held accountable for the charges).

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant J. Michael McHugh appeals the trial court’s decisions to award primary residential custody of the parties’ two minor children to appellee Anita M. McHugh, and to not require appellee to pay taxes and- insurance on property owned by the parties as tenants by the entireties during their marriage. We find that the record provided to this court is inadequate to support appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding appellee primary residential custody. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979). We further conclude that the second issue is without merit. See Taber v. Taber, 626 So.2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So.2d 205, 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (mutual obligation to pay charges placed upon property applies to property held as tenants in common, as opposed to tenants by the entireties, wherein either party may be held accountable for the charges).

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 1285, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3310, 2000 WL 290086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mchugh-v-mchugh-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack