Woods v. Woods

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woods v. Woods

610 So. 2d 71, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12291, 1992 WL 361326

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 9, 1992

DocketNo. 92-0019

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 610 So. 2d 71 (Woods v. Woods) 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

Woods v. Woods, 610 So. 2d 71, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12291, 1992 WL 361326 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects, except we comment on two issues not raised by either party. Although we applaud the trial court’s efforts to expeditiously resolve cases, we discourage the practice of bifurcating the issues in dissolution of marriage cases and in entering hand written judgments on those issues. As this court stated in Weasel v. Weasel, 419 So.2d 698, 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), “[a] trial court has the power to bifurcate. However, such procedure should be employed with caution and will be the exception rather than the rule.” See also Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So.2d 1061, 1062 (Fla.1980). In the instant case, the record reveals no justification for the trial court dissolving the marriage without simultaneously resolving the various disputed issues.

We also discourage the use of “fill-in-the-blank” final judgment forms upon which the trial court enters handwritten rulings on disputed issues of alimony, equitable distribution and child custody, support, and visitation, which are difficult to decipher and, thus, hinder appellate review.

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, HERSEY and GUNTHER, JJ, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects, except we comment on two issues not raised by either party. Although we applaud the trial court’s efforts to expeditiously resolve cases, we discourage the practice of bifurcating the issues in dissolution of marriage cases and in entering hand written judgments on those issues. As this court stated in Weasel v. Weasel, 419 So.2d 698, 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), “[a] trial court has the power to bifurcate. However, such procedure should be employed with caution and will be the exception rather than the rule.” See also Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So.2d 1061, 1062 (Fla.1980). In the instant case, the record reveals no justification for the trial court dissolving the marriage without simultaneously resolving the various disputed issues.

We also discourage the use of “fill-in-the-blank” final judgment forms upon which the trial court enters handwritten rulings on disputed issues of alimony, equitable distribution and child custody, support, and visitation, which are difficult to decipher and, thus, hinder appellate review.

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, HERSEY and GUNTHER, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 So. 2d 71, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12291, 1992 WL 361326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-woods-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack