Wade v. Wade

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wade v. Wade

225 So. 3d 1016, 2017 WL 4158813, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 13341

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D17-0341

StatusPublished

This text of 225 So. 3d 1016 (Wade v. Wade) 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

Wade v. Wade, 225 So. 3d 1016, 2017 WL 4158813, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 13341 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution, we affirm without comment as to all issues except the requirement that the former husband maintain life insurance to secure his support obligations. The trial court orally pronounced this requirement, but it was not included in the written judgment as the law requires. See Schmidt [1017]*1017v. Schmidt, 151 So.3d 27, 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding written judgment must conform to oral pronouncement). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to modify the final judgment to include the orally-pronounced life insurance requirement.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

RAY, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution, we affirm without comment as to all issues except the requirement that the former husband maintain life insurance to secure his support obligations. The trial court orally pronounced this requirement, but it was not included in the written judgment as the law requires. See Schmidt [1017]*1017v. Schmidt, 151 So.3d 27, 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding written judgment must conform to oral pronouncement). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to modify the final judgment to include the orally-pronounced life insurance requirement.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

RAY, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 3d 1016, 2017 WL 4158813, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 13341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-wade-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack