WILLIAM EDWARD KRAUS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
CATHY JEAN KRAUS, 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 court held that the trial court erred in failing to clarify provisions regarding the marital domicile and the specifics of alimony and child support, but did not err in the amount awarded.
A husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution, raising three issues concerning the marital domicile, alimony, and child support.…
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 Matrimonial Domicile cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by a husband from a final judgment of dissolution. There are three issues:
I.Whether the court erred in not clarifying paragraph 5 of the final judgment because the said paragraph does not state what is to become of the marital domicile upon the remarriage of the wife. The parties agree that the trial court was in error. II. Whether the court erred in failing to specify what in the final judgment constituted alimony, what type of alimony, and the duration of same. The parties agree that the trial court was in error. III. Whether the court erred in that it abused its discretion in the amount of alimony and child support which it ordered the husband to pay to the wife. We conclude that it did not.
As for the first issue, we remand for clarification. See Scheuermann v. Scheuermann, 423 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Caldwell v. Caldwell, 400 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
We similarly remand for clarification of the second issue. See Zediker v. Zediker, 398 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), a situation similar to this one, in which the court ordered the husband to make mortgage and utility payments. Noting that there are tax consequences to be considered, the appellate court remanded in Zediker for denomination of these expenses as child support or alimony. The trial court on remand should so classify the mortgage and insurance payments.
In all other respects we affirm the trial court.
GLICKSTEIN and BARKETT, JJ., and SCOTT, ROBERT C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pennco, Inc. v. Meritor Savings, 617 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ortgage and whether the evidence establishes the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defenses asserted. Accordingly, we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Brooks v. Brooks, 454 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Howdeshell v. First Nat’l Bank of Clearwater, 369 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Historically, parties have pursued mortgage foreclosures in summary judgment proceedings through the presentation of affidavits. However, if the r…
Authorities Cited
- In re the Marriage of Henry James Caldwell v. Caldwell, 400 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Zediker v. Zediker, 398 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Scheuermann v. Scheuermann, 423 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)