Taff v. Taff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Taff v. Taff

668 So. 2d 275, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1156, 1996 WL 63386

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1289

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 668 So. 2d 275 (Taff v. Taff) 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

Taff v. Taff, 668 So. 2d 275, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1156, 1996 WL 63386 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Steven Taff appeals a final judgment of dissolution raising six points of alleged error by the trial court. We reverse and remand on two of those issues and otherwise affirm the final judgment.

We agree that the trial court did not comply with section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993). The final judgment does not identify or value, with the exception of certain stock holdings and partnership interests, any significant assets. The order does not explain whether the distribution ordered therein was intended to be an equal or unequal distribution, and the justification therefor. If deemed necessary, the trial court on remand may conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue. See Miller v. Miller, 667 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

The trial court also erred in finding that the issue of primary residential custody of the parties’ minor child was not before the court on the ground that “[t]he Husband did not request primary residency of the [children].” Although inartfully drawn, the husband’s answer to the wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage was sufficient to put the wife and the trial court on notice that the husband intended to contest the issue of primary residency. See McFarley v. McFarley, 353 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 888 (Fla.1978) (wife adequately requested custody of the children in her answer to husband’s petition for dissolution).

MINER, LAWRENCE, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Steven Taff appeals a final judgment of dissolution raising six points of alleged error by the trial court. We reverse and remand on two of those issues and otherwise affirm the final judgment.

We agree that the trial court did not comply with section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993). The final judgment does not identify or value, with the exception of certain stock holdings and partnership interests, any significant assets. The order does not explain whether the distribution ordered therein was intended to be an equal or unequal distribution, and the justification therefor. If deemed necessary, the trial court on remand may conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue. See Miller v. Miller, 667 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

The trial court also erred in finding that the issue of primary residential custody of the parties’ minor child was not before the court on the ground that “[t]he Husband did not request primary residency of the [children].” Although inartfully drawn, the husband’s answer to the wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage was sufficient to put the wife and the trial court on notice that the husband intended to contest the issue of primary residency. See McFarley v. McFarley, 353 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 888 (Fla.1978) (wife adequately requested custody of the children in her answer to husband’s petition for dissolution).

MINER, LAWRENCE, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 So. 2d 275, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1156, 1996 WL 63386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taff-v-taff-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack