CHARLES ADAMS
v.
CLAUDINE ADAMS
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.
A former husband appeals from a circuit court's order regarding true-up/equalizing payments in a family law matter. The court affirmed the underlying order but reversed the denial of the motion for rehearing and remanded for reconsideration of the former husband's request for credit for expenses paid after the evidentiary hearing.
The court affirmed the 'Second Order' as entered because the former husband had not previously requested credit for post-hearing expenses. However, the court reversed the summary denial of the motion for rehearing because it properly raised a request for relief consistent with the order's findings and remanded for the circuit court to reconsider the motion on its merits.
[1] A motion for rehearing raising a request for relief consistent with the trial court's own findings and conclusions must be addressed on the merits and cannot be summarily…
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 intelligence“Any order entered on the motion for rehearing should address credit to be given for any future payments beyond that order as well, rather than perpetuating piecemeal disposition and appeals of future payments.”
Remand instruction to prevent future litigation over successive post-hearing payments
The former husband challenged a 'Second Order on True-Up/Equalizing Payment' entered eight months after an evidentiary hearing in a marital dissolutio…
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 Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kathleen J. Kroll, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502012DR011848AXXNB.
Andrea Cox and John A. Turner of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Miami, for appellant.
Steven M. Katzman and Craig A. Rubinstein of Katzman, Wasserman, Bennardini & Rubinstein, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.
GERBER, C.J. The former husband appeals from the circuit court’s “Second Order on True-Up/Equalizing Payment” and the circuit court’s later order denying the former husband’s “Motion for Rehearing of Second Order on True-Up/Equalizing Payment.” The former husband primarily argued in the motion for rehearing that the “Second Order,” entered eight months after the evidentiary hearing on which the order was based, did not credit certain expenses which the former husband continued to pay after the evidentiary hearing, up to the time the “Second Order” was entered and thereafter. We affirm the “Second Order,” because until the former husband filed his motion for rehearing, the former husband had not requested the circuit court to credit certain expenses which the former husband continued to pay after the evidentiary hearing up to the time the “Second Order” was entered and thereafter. However, because the motion for rehearing ultimately raised this request, the circuit court erred in summarily denying the motion, which appears to merely seek relief consistent with the findings and conclusions in the “Second Order,” that is, credit for certain expenses which the former husband continued to pay after the evidentiary hearing, up to the time the “Second Order” was entered and thereafter. We remand for the circuit court to reconsider the former husband’s motion for rehearing on its merits. We caution the parties and the circuit court that any order entered on the motion for rehearing should address credit to be given for any future payments beyond that order as well, rather than perpetuating piecemeal disposition and appeals of future payments.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.