INNA BELL
v.
CHAD BELL
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.
Trial courts must correct mathematical errors and omissions in dissolution judgments even though they possess wide discretion in such matters.
[1] Although trial courts possess wide discretion in dissolution of marriage matters, appellate courts must correct mathematical errors and omissions in final judgments, incl…
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“notwithstanding the trial court's wide discretion in dissolution matters, this court must correct mathematical errors made by the trial court. . . . Thus, remand is required for recalculation . . .”
Court citing Veith v. Veith and Doyle v. Doyle for the principle that appellate courts must correct such errors despite judicial discretion.
In a dissolution of marriage with minor children, the parties agreed at trial that the former husband would be responsible for and credited with payin…
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 Marital Liabilities cases and more on FLexlaw
January 17, 2025 PER CURIAM.
Inna Bell (“Former Wife”) appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage with minor children (“Final Judgment”). Chad Bell (“Former Husband”) cross-appeals. We affirm in all respects except as to a $10,009.00 Bank of America loan that was not included in the Final Judgment.
On cross-appeal, Former Husband argues that he was not credited with paying the $10,009.00 Bank of America loan on Former Wife’s vehicle. At the final hearing, the parties agreed Former Husband was responsible for and was to be credited with paying this marital liability. However, the Final Judgment failed to account for it.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to credit Former Husband with paying the $10,009.00 Bank of America loan. See Veith v. Veith, 315 So. 3d 1259, 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“[N]otwithstanding the trial court’s wide discretion in dissolution matters, this court must correct mathematical errors made by the trial court. . . . Thus, remand is required for recalculation . . . .” (alteration in original) (quoting Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So. 2d 499, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001))). In all other respects we affirm.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. SOUD, KILBANE, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Veith v. Veith, 315 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)