Musso v. Musso

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Musso v. Musso

670 So. 2d 122, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2032, 1996 WL 93896

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1996

DocketNo. 95-0421

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 670 So. 2d 122 (Musso v. Musso) 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

Musso v. Musso, 670 So. 2d 122, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2032, 1996 WL 93896 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution in all respects except for paragraph thirteen thereof. As to that paragraph, we remand for the trial court to consider, without any further hearing, whether the accounts are governed by section 710.112, Florida Statutes (1993). If so, said accounts are to be maintained as custodial accounts with a single custodian. If the court determines said accounts are not governed by said statute, it is to order that they be changed to those where two signatories are permitted. As to the partition, the appellant has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the amendment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(b). Nor has appellant established an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s support and property distribution award.

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution in all respects except for paragraph thirteen thereof. As to that paragraph, we remand for the trial court to consider, without any further hearing, whether the accounts are governed by section 710.112, Florida Statutes (1993). If so, said accounts are to be maintained as custodial accounts with a single custodian. If the court determines said accounts are not governed by said statute, it is to order that they be changed to those where two signatories are permitted. As to the partition, the appellant has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the amendment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(b). Nor has appellant established an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s support and property distribution award.

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 So. 2d 122, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2032, 1996 WL 93896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/musso-v-musso-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack