J. MICHAEL MCHUGH, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
ANITA M. MCHUGH, FORMER WIFE, 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 concurring opinion argues that an order restricting how a child addresses a male father figure is ill-advised and potentially unenforceable, suggesting that while a father's concerns about alienation are valid, such matters are difficult for courts to regulate.
The concurring justice believes that an order restricting how a child addresses a male father figure is ill-advised and potentially unenforceable due to enforcement difficulties and the risk of abuse.
The case involves a concurring opinion that references a prior order in a divorce case. The concurring justice discusses the difficulty of enforcing a…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant J. Michael McHugh appeals the trial court’s decisions to award primary residential custody of the parties’ two minor children to appellee Anita M. McHugh, and to not require appellee to pay taxes and-insurance on property owned by the parties as tenants by the entireties during their marriage. We find that the record provided to this court is inadequate to support appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding appellee primary residential custody. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). We further conclude that the second issue is without merit. See Taber v. Taber, 626 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So. 2d 205, 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (mutual obligation to pay charges placed upon property applies to property held as tenants in common, as opposed to tenants by the entireties, wherein either party may be held accountable for the charges).
AFFIRMED.
DAVIS, BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neville v. J.C. Penney Corp., 135 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…reasonable, the Court was “nonetheless constrained to reverse the order because the judge failed to make adequate factual findings on each of the statutory factors enumerated in section 440.34(1)[, Florida Statutes].” Wheeler v. S. Fla. State Hosp., 752 So. 2d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The attorney fee awarded must be based on record evidence. In Smith v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 624 So. 2d 315, 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), this Court reversed the JCC’s determination that a reasonable hourly rate was $150 per hour…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Tinsley v. Tinsley, 490 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Taber v. Taber, 626 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)