Bennett v. Bennett case brief
655 So.2d 109
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
655 So.2d 109
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant
husband challenged a judgment from the Circuit Court for Duval County
(Florida) that, in his and appellee wife's dissolution proceeding,
awarded custody of the parties' dog to appellant but awarded appellee
visitation with the parties' dog. Appellant claimed that the trial
court erred in awarding appellee visitation and erred in modifying
the final judgment to increase appellee's visitation rights with the
dog.
FACTS: Appellant husband challenged a judgment that, in his and appellee wife's dissolution proceeding, awarded custody of the parties' dog to appellant but awarded appellee visitation rights. The court reversed the judgment. The court noted that while a dog could be considered by many to be a member of the family, under Florida law, animals were considered to be personal property. Thus, the court ruled, because there was no authority which provided for a trial court to grant custody or visitation pertaining to personal property, Fla. Stat. ch. 61.075 (1993), the court erred in granting appellee such visitation rights. The court remanded for the trial court to award the animal pursuant to the dictates of the equitable distribution statute.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed a judgment that, in the parties' dissolution action, awarded appellant husband custody of the parties' dog but awarded appellee wife visitation rights with the dog. The trial court lacked authority to order visitation with personal property, and the dog was personal property under Florida law.
FACTS: Appellant husband challenged a judgment that, in his and appellee wife's dissolution proceeding, awarded custody of the parties' dog to appellant but awarded appellee visitation rights. The court reversed the judgment. The court noted that while a dog could be considered by many to be a member of the family, under Florida law, animals were considered to be personal property. Thus, the court ruled, because there was no authority which provided for a trial court to grant custody or visitation pertaining to personal property, Fla. Stat. ch. 61.075 (1993), the court erred in granting appellee such visitation rights. The court remanded for the trial court to award the animal pursuant to the dictates of the equitable distribution statute.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed a judgment that, in the parties' dissolution action, awarded appellant husband custody of the parties' dog but awarded appellee wife visitation rights with the dog. The trial court lacked authority to order visitation with personal property, and the dog was personal property under Florida law.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment