Pansky v. Pansky

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pansky v. Pansky

204 So. 3d 517, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11730

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2016

DocketNo. 4D14-3481

StatusPublished

This text of 204 So. 3d 517 (Pansky v. Pansky) 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

Pansky v. Pansky, 204 So. 3d 517, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11730 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage alleging multiple errors by the trial court. The former wife concedes one error: that the court erred in failing to make a specific finding of misconduct necessary to support equitable distribution to the wife of funds the husband spent pending these proceedings. See Bishop v. Bishop, 47 So.3d 326, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“[Tjhere must be evidence of the spending spouse’s intentional dissipation or destruction of the asset, and the trial court must make a specific finding that the dissipation resulted from intentional misconduct.”). On this issue we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The court may decide the issue on the present state of the record or take additional evidence, as it deems appropriate. In all other respects, we affirm the final judgment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

WARNER, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage alleging multiple errors by the trial court. The former wife concedes one error: that the court erred in failing to make a specific finding of misconduct necessary to support equitable distribution to the wife of funds the husband spent pending these proceedings. See Bishop v. Bishop, 47 So.3d 326, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“[Tjhere must be evidence of the spending spouse’s intentional dissipation or destruction of the asset, and the trial court must make a specific finding that the dissipation resulted from intentional misconduct.”). On this issue we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The court may decide the issue on the present state of the record or take additional evidence, as it deems appropriate. In all other respects, we affirm the final judgment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

WARNER, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 So. 3d 517, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pansky-v-pansky-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack