Pash v. Halko

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pash v. Halko

185 So. 3d 713, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2194

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 17, 2016

DocketNo. 2D15-2957

StatusPublished

This text of 185 So. 3d 713 (Pash v. Halko) 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

Pash v. Halko, 185 So. 3d 713, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2194 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. However, the parties concede that paragraph 3 of the “ordered” section of the order on appeal contains a scrivener’s error. Accordingly, we remand so that the order- reflects counsels’ stated agreement that the child, A.S.H., would time share when he was willing to do so, but that' the child, A.C.H., would follow (one (1) day a week for four (4) hours).

Affirmed. Remanded to correct scrivener’s error.

SILBERMAN, LaROSE, and LUCAS, JJ., concur. • -

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. However, the parties concede that paragraph 3 of the “ordered” section of the order on appeal contains a scrivener’s error. Accordingly, we remand so that the order- reflects counsels’ stated agreement that the child, A.S.H., would time share when he was willing to do so, but that' the child, A.C.H., would follow (one (1) day a week for four (4) hours).

Affirmed. Remanded to correct scrivener’s error.

SILBERMAN, LaROSE, and LUCAS, JJ., concur. • -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 So. 3d 713, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pash-v-halko-fladistctapp-2016.