MICHELLE KHETARPAL
v.
SUNIL KHETARPAL, REX & REX LIMITED, INC.
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's determination of marital assets, denial of permanent alimony, and interpretation of the prenuptial agreement were upheld, but the conflicting bridge-the-gap alimony amounts must be clarified on remand.
[1] An internal conflict in an alimony judgment where the court determines one monthly amount is needed but awards a different monthly amount constitutes reversible error req…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were in a marriage that included the existence of a prenuptial agreement. The trial court made determinations regarding division of marita…
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 Prenuptial Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
MICHELLE KHETARPAL, n/k/a MICHELLE BOOTH,
Appellant,
v.
SUNIL KHETARPAL, REX & REX LIMITED, INC., a Florida corporation, and KHETARPAL HOLDINGS, LLC,
Appellees.
No. 4D16-2757
[January 10, 2018]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Howard K. Coates Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2014-DR-001826-XXXX-NB.
Jeanne C. Brady and Frank R. Brady of Brady & Brady, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.
John T. Christiansen Jr. of Law Offices of John T. Christiansen, P.L., West Palm Beach, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The wife appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the trial court’s determination of marital assets, denial of permanent alimony, interpretation of the prenuptial agreement, and valuation date for marital assets. We find the issues raised to be without merit and affirm without discussion. However, we reverse and remand for the limited purpose of resolving a conflict in the judgment, which found the wife needed $5,200 per month in bridge-the-gap alimony but awarded $3,964.42 per month in bridge-the-gap alimony.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. GERBER, C.J., LEVINE, J. and SINGHAL, RAAG, Associate Judge, concur.
* * *
2
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.