KERRI G. ZEH, APPELLANT,
v.
LAWRENCE M. ZEH, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equitable Distribution cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
We find little fault in the trial court’s handling of this most difficult dissolution. We agree with the wife, however, that the provisions relating to equitable distribution are confusing and contradictory and we reverse and remand for clarification.
On the one hand, the judgment provides that the husband is awarded all assets in the marital home. In another provision, however, the court awards both parties assets from a detailed schedule which includes assets contained within the home. Further, the judgment relieves the husband from any medical expenses to Florida Hospital, either before or after separation, and yet Schedule A, incorporated in the judgment, lists expenses to Florida Hospital as the husband’s obligation.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for clarification of the equitable distribution.
ANTOON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 806 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…er of the minivan.6 We agree with the trial court’s analysis. A defendant may appeal a conviction based on a guilty or nolo contende-re plea if he expressly reserves the right to appeal a prior dispositive order of the trial court. Blanco v. State, 752 So. 2d 79, 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see § 924.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2000); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). In the instant case, the trial court correctly found that the motion to suppress was not dispositive and so advised Jones at the time that the plea was ent…
-
England v. State, 46 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…y the point of law being reserved. “An order denying a motion to suppress a confession is not dispositive for purposes of this rule unless the parties so stipulate.” Wilson v. State, 885 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Blanco v. State, 752 So. 2d 79, 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that “as a matter of law, the issue of whether a confession should be suppressed is not dispositive” unless “the State stipulates that it could not proceed with the prosecution of the case without the benefit of the c…
-
Maxwell v. State, 917 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…tendere; stating that "[a]n order denying a motion to suppress a confession is not dispositive for purposes of this rule unless the parties so stipulate.”) (citations omitted); Debiasio v. State, 789 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Blanco v. State, 752 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Spiker v. State, 477 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Freeman v. State, 450 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Jackson v. State, 382 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), aff'd, 392 So. 2d 1324 (Fla.1981); Oesterle v. State, 382 So. 2d 129…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence