Stringfellow v. Stringfellow

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stringfellow v. Stringfellow

529 So. 2d 357, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1870, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3664, 1988 WL 81961

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1682

StatusPublished

This text of 529 So. 2d 357 (Stringfellow v. Stringfellow) 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

Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 529 So. 2d 357, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1870, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3664, 1988 WL 81961 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant appeals a final judgment of dissolution. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

The final judgment is silent and the order on rehearing is ambiguous as to whether the trial judge gave any consideration to appellee’s pension plan and appellant’s IRA for equitable distribution purposes. Therefore, we reverse and remand with the direction that the trial court enter a supplemental order reflecting its consideration of those assets, and its determination based upon that consideration in accordance with Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986). See also White v. White, 527 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

We find no reversible error in the trial court’s award to appellee, pursuant to appellant’s agreement in open court, of exclusive use of the marital home upon the condition that appellee make all mortgage and upkeep payments thereon. Although on appeal appellant seeks remuneration for one-half the rental value of the home, the record does not reflect that she raised that issue in the trial court. Therefore, no ruling on that question is before this Court for review. However, in light of the considerations set forth in Barrow v. Barrow, 527 So.2d 1373 (Fla.1988) and the quagmire described in Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), we suggest that, upon remand, the court revisit the award of exclusive possession of the marital home to the extent of clarifying for the future the questions of offsets for improvement, preservation, and reasonable rental value of the property.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

SMITH, C.J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant appeals a final judgment of dissolution. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

The final judgment is silent and the order on rehearing is ambiguous as to whether the trial judge gave any consideration to appellee’s pension plan and appellant’s IRA for equitable distribution purposes. Therefore, we reverse and remand with the direction that the trial court enter a supplemental order reflecting its consideration of those assets, and its determination based upon that consideration in accordance with Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265 (Fla.1986). See also White v. White, 527 So.2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

We find no reversible error in the trial court’s award to appellee, pursuant to appellant’s agreement in open court, of exclusive use of the marital home upon the condition that appellee make all mortgage and upkeep payments thereon. Although on appeal appellant seeks remuneration for one-half the rental value of the home, the record does not reflect that she raised that issue in the trial court. Therefore, no ruling on that question is before this Court for review. However, in light of the considerations set forth in Barrow v. Barrow, 527 So.2d 1373 (Fla.1988) and the quagmire described in Brandt v. Brandt, 525 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), we suggest that, upon remand, the court revisit the award of exclusive possession of the marital home to the extent of clarifying for the future the questions of offsets for improvement, preservation, and reasonable rental value of the property.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

SMITH, C.J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 So. 2d 357, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1870, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3664, 1988 WL 81961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stringfellow-v-stringfellow-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack