Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gergen v. Gergen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 22, 2010No. 1D10-257Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKahn, J.

This case must be reversed on the reservation of jurisdiction as to alimony, but only because the trial court did not apply a temporal constraint to such reservation. Contrary to the statement of the majority, the judgment is not lacking in finality. As we stated in Herman v. Herman, 889 So.2d 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004):

The trial court’s decision to reserve jurisdiction to award alimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16-17 (Fla.1976). The general rule is that the court should retain jurisdiction when there is a likelihood of a change in circumstances in the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Shaw v. ShawSupreme Court of Florida · 1976
  2. Moore v. MooreDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  3. Arthur v. ArthurSupreme Court of Florida · 2010
  4. Brown v. BrownDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  5. Biskie v. BiskieDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2010

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API