JOYCE ANN GARDNER, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID ALLEN STOCK, 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 failed to comply with the appellate court's prior mandate to reference statutory factors when distributing marital assets.
Following a prior appeal, the trial court was instructed to determine marital/non-marital property and justify asset distribution using statutory fact…
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 Distribution Of Marital Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joyce Ann Gardner appeals the amended final judgment of dissolution rendered by the trial court upon remand from this court’s mandate in Gardner v. Stock, 645 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). This court directed the trial court to:
1. Determine whether the vehicles and the liabilities set forth in paragraph 14 of the final judgment are marital or non-marital. Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); § 61.075(3), Fla.Stat. 2. Reference the factors listed in section 61.075(1) in order to justify the distribution of the marital assets. McMonagle v. McMonagle, 617 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Id.
Upon remand, the trial court focused on paragraph one of this court’s order. Unfortunately, the trial court failed to comply with this court’s direction to reference the factors required by section 61.075(1).
Finding this to be the only error on appeal, we again remand with instructions to comply with the requirements of section 61.075(1).
REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.
PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 908 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2005)…So. 2d at 814. This is not a case in which a lack of coverage or exclusion from liability emerges in any conceivable way from comparing the facts in the complaint with the text of coverage under the policy. Cf. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Keen, 658 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (plaintiffs statement that he was operating a boat with a 40-horsepower engine relieved the insurer of the duty to defend because the boat was more powerful than coverage allowed); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Culver, 576 So…
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Beville, 825 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…carrier gives an insured notice of a reservation of rights, the carrier must either get a nonwaiver agreement with its insured or furnish mutually acceptable counsel to defend the insured against the claim. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Keen, 658 So. 2d 1101, 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (“An insured is always free to refuse a defense under a reservation of rights.”). Because of the failure of the carrier to comply with either alternative in this case, the carrier thus ceded control of the litigation to its…
-
Advanced Sys. v. Gotham Ins. Co., 272 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- McMONAGLE v. McMONAGLE, 617 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Gardner v. Stock, 645 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)