Schriefer v. Schriefer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schriefer v. Schriefer

800 So. 2d 699, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16912, 2001 WL 1517421

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 2001

DocketNo. 5D01-789

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 800 So. 2d 699 (Schriefer v. Schriefer) 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

Schriefer v. Schriefer, 800 So. 2d 699, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16912, 2001 WL 1517421 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, J.

This is a one issue appeal from a breakup of a two year marriage. That one issue is the reasonableness of the distribution of marital property. The distribution is both confusing and unequal and is unexplained by the judgment. We remand for the court to set forth the expenditures of marital funds by both parties (the court has listed various amounts of expenditures by the wife but we cannot determine whether such expenditures overlap or are distinct) and explain how such expenditures, if they do, justify the considerably greater distribution to the husband or, if the disparity is not due to such expenditures, advise us what the justification is. See section 61.075(8)(d), Fla. Stat.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PETERSON and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

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

HARRIS, J.

This is a one issue appeal from a breakup of a two year marriage. That one issue is the reasonableness of the distribution of marital property. The distribution is both confusing and unequal and is unexplained by the judgment. We remand for the court to set forth the expenditures of marital funds by both parties (the court has listed various amounts of expenditures by the wife but we cannot determine whether such expenditures overlap or are distinct) and explain how such expenditures, if they do, justify the considerably greater distribution to the husband or, if the disparity is not due to such expenditures, advise us what the justification is. See section 61.075(8)(d), Fla. Stat.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PETERSON and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

800 So. 2d 699, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16912, 2001 WL 1517421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schriefer-v-schriefer-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack