MAXINE KEMMERER, APPELLANT,
v.
RUSSELL E. KEMMERER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court abused its discretion by failing to award the wife and minor children the right to occupy the marital home until the wife's death or remarriage or the youngest child reaches majority.
A trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to grant the wife and minor children the right to live in the marital home until the wife dies or remarries, or the younger child reaches majority.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage, the trial court should award the wife and minor children the right to occupy the marital home until the wife's death or remarriage or the yo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the trial court denied the wife and minor children the right to occupy the marital home.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Under the circumstances presented in the record, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant the wife and minor children of the parties the right to live in the marital home until the wife dies or remarries, or the younger child reaches majority. Smith v. Smith, 378 So. 2d 11, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Alford v. Alford, 364 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bailey v. Bailey, 361 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 424 (Fla.1977); Plant v. Plant, 320 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, dismissed, 336 So. 2d 107, 341 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1976); Reisman v. Reisman, 314 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1976); Venzer v. Venzer, 308 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Upon remand, the final judgment of dissolution under review shall be appropriately amended to reflect this determination.
We find no error in the other challenged provisions of the judgment below. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cabrera v. Cabrera, 484 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…CA 1982); Florence v. Florence, 400 So. 2d 1018 (Fla.1st DCA 1981); Zeller v. Zeller, 396 So. 2d 1177 (Fla.4th DCA 1981); Farrington v. Farrington, 390 So. 2d 461 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), review dismissed, 399 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.1981); Kemmerer v. Kemmerer, 386 So. 2d 1248 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1376 (Fla.1981); Smith v. Smith, 378 So. 2d 11 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1118 (Fla.1980); Dolch v. Dolch, 368 So. 2d 618 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Bailey v. Bailey, 361 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA…
-
Pino v. Pino, 418 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Monserrate B. McNAUGHTON v. McNAUGHTON, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Maita P. Singer v. Singer, 342 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Smith v. Smith, 378 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Adams v. Division OF Administration, 378 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Alford v. Alford, 364 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Plant v. Plant, 320 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Kris Reisman v. Reisman, 314 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)