Bell v. Bell<\/p>\n
This was a divorce case involving several issues regarding the parties\u2019 marital and non-marital assets. Our client appealed and the opposing party cross appealed. Our client\u2019s main issues were the trial court\u2019s failure to (1) award her half of the husband\u2019s accounts receivable from loans he made to his businesses; and (2) make factual findings before denying her request for bridge-the-gap alimony.<\/p>\n
The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court erred in failing to award our client half of the husband\u2019s accounts receivable. It reversed and remanded with instructions that the trial court make specific written findings regarding the assets. Likewise, Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to make the appropriate findings regarding our client\u2019s request for bridge-the-gap-alimony, and it also reversed on that point. Our client was awarded entitlement to attorney\u2019s fees as the prevailing party. Shortly thereafter, the opposing party filed a motion for rehearing and\/or clarification to which our client responded. In agreement with our response, the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the opposing party\u2019s request for rehearing and\/or clarification.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bell v. Bell This was a divorce case involving several issues regarding the parties\u2019 marital and non-marital assets. Our client appealed and the opposing party cross appealed. Our client\u2019s main issues were the trial court\u2019s failure to (1) award her half of the husband\u2019s accounts receivable from loans he made to his businesses; and (2)…<\/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":[2039,1990,1858,2040,2041,2042,2043,1882,2044,2045,2046,2047,1916,1912],"class_list":["post-2211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4th-dca-rulings","category-bresky-appellate-cases","category-family","tag-accounts-receivable","tag-alimony","tag-appeal","tag-assets","tag-bridge-the-gap-alimony","tag-businesses","tag-divorce","tag-fourth-district-court-of-appeals","tag-loans","tag-marital-assets","tag-motion-for-rehearing","tag-non-marital-assets","tag-opposing-party","tag-trial-court"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2211","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=2211"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2211\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}