DENISE M. TERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS J. TERRY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of additional attorney's fees and rejection of alleged parental loans, but reversed and remanded on equitable distribution issues regarding the husband's pensions and marital furniture where the trial court erred or the parties had stipulated otherwise.
The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional attorney's fees and in rejecting the former wife's claimed parental loans, but erred in the equitable distribution of the husband's New Jersey pension, marital furniture, and the husband's Town of Palm Beach pension.
[1] In a dissolution action, a circuit court does not abuse its discretion in declining to award additional attorney's fees beyond those granted on a temporary basis when the…
[2] A circuit court errs in equitably dividing marital property, including a pension, that the parties dissipated during the pendency of the action.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA former wife appealed a final judgment of dissolution, raising six arguments regarding attorney's fees, parental loans, pension division, furniture d…
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 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The former wife appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution. The former wife raises six arguments. We affirm without discussion on two of those arguments by concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in: (1) not awarding the former wife any costs and attorney’s fees in addition to those costs and attorney’s fees which the court granted on a temporary basis (see former wife’s argument I); and (2) not equitably valuing or dividing the former wife’s alleged loans from her parents (see former wife’s argument IV).
On the former wife’s other four arguments, the former husband concedes to those -arguments. We agree with those concessions. Therefore, we conclude the circuit court erred in: (1) equitably dividing and awarding the former husband’s New Jersey pension which the parties dissipated during the action’s pendency (see former wife’s arguments II and VI); (2) equitably dividing the parties’ furniture and furnishings where the parties stipulated that such property would not be equitably divided (see former wife’s argument III); and (3) failing to equitably value or divide the former husband’s Town of Palm Beach pension (see former wife’s argument V). We remand for the circuit court to revise the equitable distribution schedule based on these arguments only.
*640 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.