Bell v. Bell, 502007DR002692XXXXSB
\nCase No. 4D10-5122<\/p>\n
This was a divorce case with several contested issues regarding the parties\u2019 marital and non-marital assets. Our client, the former wife, appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband cross-appealed. Our client\u2019s main issues were (1) the trial court\u2019s failure to award her half of the husband\u2019s accounts receivable from loans he made to his businesses; and (2) the trial court\u2019s failure to make factual findings before denying her request for bridge-the-gap alimony.<\/p>\n
The Fourth District Court of Appeal (\u201cFourth DCA\u201d) agreed with our position that the trial court had erred in failing to award our client half of the husband\u2019s accounts receivable. The Fourth DCA reversed and remanded. On remand to the trial court, the former husband took the position that the issue required an evidentiary hearing to determine the new equitable distribution of the asset. We opposed the need for an evidentiary hearing, arguing that no evidentiary hearing was necessary because the Fourth DCA clearly stated in its written opinion that the value of the omitted account receivable was $660,611 based on undisputed testimony from the trial.<\/p>\n
The trial court agreed and entered an order denying the former husband\u2019s demand for an evidentiary hearing. The trial court received proposed Final Judgments from the parties. This preserved the positive result we achieved in the appellate court for our client and saved her the additional attorney\u2019s fees associated with a lengthy evidentiary hearing in the trial court after remand.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bell v. Bell, 502007DR002692XXXXSB Case No. 4D10-5122 This was a divorce case with several contested issues regarding the parties\u2019 marital and non-marital assets. Our client, the former wife, appealed the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former husband cross-appealed. Our client\u2019s main issues were (1) the trial court\u2019s failure to award her half of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1811,1807,1806],"tags":[2195,2421,1990,2372,2040,2073,1900,2114,2043,2102,2357,2008,2422,2045,2047],"class_list":["post-2181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4th-dca-rulings","category-bresky-appellate-cases","category-family","tag-4th-dca","tag-accounts-receiveable","tag-alimony","tag-appellate","tag-assets","tag-attorneys-fees","tag-cross-appeal","tag-dissolution-of-marriage","tag-divorce","tag-equitable-distribution","tag-evidentiary-hearing","tag-fourth-district-court-of-appeal","tag-law-offices-of-robin-bresky","tag-marital-assets","tag-non-marital-assets"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2181"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2181\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}