PAMELLA J. HAAS, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS F. HAAS, 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.
In this family law appeal, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's final judgment in a marital property division case, praising the trial court's organized categorization of property items in the judgment while noting one omitted $10,000 item was harmless error.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, finding that the omission of the $10,000 item was harmless error because the equitable distribution shown for all mentioned items demonstrated no abuse of discretion.
[1] An equitable distribution of marital property will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
[2] The omission of a single item of property from an equitable distribution judgment is harmless error when the distribution of all other mentioned items shows no abuse of d…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An orderly, logical format with captions in a final judgment, as in an agreement, is most welcome to reviewers; and we recognize the time required to craft a well-organized instrument.”
The court's praise for the trial court's clear organization and categorization of property items in the judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties disputed equitable distribution of marital property in a divorce case. The trial court issued a final judgment that categorized each conte…
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 Equitable Distribution cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1390] GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
We affirm the final judgment in its entirety and express our appreciation for the specific categorization by the trial court of each item with which it was concerned, albeit an absence of numbers. An orderly, logical format with captions in a final judgment, as in an agreement, is most welcome to reviewers; and we recognize the time required to craft a well-organized instrument.
There was one item of property valued at $10,000 not mentioned. Whether by design or oversight, its omission in this case was harmless because the equitable distribution, for everything mentioned, shows no abuse of discretion. Nevertheless, address of every known item of contention is desirable because it avoids any unnecessary claim of oversight and eliminates any question in reviewers’ minds.
At oral argument the parties agreed on their understanding of the underlined portion of the equitable distribution clause in the final judgment; namely, that reimbursement to the husband is of only one-half of what he will have paid on the mortgage between the time of final judgment and the time of sale, not all of it.
Finally, a change in the parties’ circumstances arose which resulted in this court’s relinquishing jurisdiction to the trial court through February 20,1987. The trial court’s jurisdiction terminated on that date, without entry of any order. Any order entered by the trial court hereafter occasioned by change of circumstances would be reviewable by subsequent appeal, all of the briefs and review by the court having addressed the issues framed by the four comers of the final judgment and the circumstances considered thereby. Further, there was no request by either party to continue oral argument, held on February 25, 1987, involving an associate judge specially assigned for this week’s arguments before this court. Whether there is to be review, briefs and oral argument with respect to any subsequent order is speculative. We see no down side to finalizing this appeal now. Any motion for rehearing shall be filed in seven days and any response thereto within five days thereafter. DOWNEY, J., and GOLDMAN, MURRAY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pamella Haas v. Haas, 552 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…judgment required Thomas Haas to pay $2,000 per month to Pamella Haas as permanent periodic alimony. It made no reference to the furniture and household goods in the marital home. This court approved the final judgment in its entirety. Haas v. Haas, 503 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Pamella Haas failed to move into the house within the ninety-day period and Thomas Haas moved the court for leave to take possession. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered “that the former marital homeplace may and shoul…
-
Vaughn v. Vaughn, 714 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…th DCA 1993) (determining on rehearing that trial court’s failure to include in equitable distribution scheme former husband’s life insurance policy valued at $31,000 and former wife’s IRA valued at $26,554 constituted harmless error); Haas v. Haas, 503 So. 2d 1389, 1390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (determining trial court’s omission from judgment of one item of property valued at $10,000 to be harmless error since the record showed no abuse of discretion in equitable distribution scheme). In determining the distribu…