Wambst v. Wambst

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wambst v. Wambst

391 So. 2d 375

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1980

DocketNo. 79-2287

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 391 So. 2d 375 (Wambst v. Wambst) 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

Wambst v. Wambst, 391 So. 2d 375 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of marriage dissolution under review is affirmed with one modification. The provision in the final judgment which prohibits any male adult not married to the appellant-wife from staying overnight in the parties’ former marital abode [in which appellant-wife was awarded temporary occupancy] is reversed as being overbroad and an improper attempt to regulate the private life of the appellant-wife. Dominik v. Dominik, 390 So.2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sheffield v. Sheffield, 310 So.2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So.2d 844 (Fla.1976). The balance of appellant’s contentions upon this appeal are rejected as having no merit. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949, 952 (Fla.1980); Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); Leonard v. Leonard, 389 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see Groover v. Walker, 88 So.2d 312 (Fla.1956).

Affirmed as modified.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of marriage dissolution under review is affirmed with one modification. The provision in the final judgment which prohibits any male adult not married to the appellant-wife from staying overnight in the parties’ former marital abode [in which appellant-wife was awarded temporary occupancy] is reversed as being overbroad and an improper attempt to regulate the private life of the appellant-wife. Dominik v. Dominik, 390 So.2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sheffield v. Sheffield, 310 So.2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So.2d 844 (Fla.1976). The balance of appellant’s contentions upon this appeal are rejected as having no merit. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949, 952 (Fla.1980); Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); Leonard v. Leonard, 389 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see Groover v. Walker, 88 So.2d 312 (Fla.1956).

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 So. 2d 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wambst-v-wambst-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack