Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

KATSLARYNA H. BAILOR v. DOUGLASS D. BAILOR, 19-2554 (2020)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 19-2554 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 15, 2020
Latest Update: Jul. 15, 2020
Summary: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT KATSIARYNA H. BAILOR, Appellant, v. DOUGLASS D. BAILOR, Appellee. No. 4D19-2554 [July 15, 2020] Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312018DR000912. Jordan B. Abramowitz of Abramowitz and Associates, Coral Gables, for appellant. Amy D. Shield and Roger Levine of Shield & Levine, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee. On Motion for Cla
More
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT KATSIARYNA H. BAILOR, Appellant, v. DOUGLASS D. BAILOR, Appellee. No. 4D19-2554 [July 15, 2020] Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312018DR000912. Jordan B. Abramowitz of Abramowitz and Associates, Coral Gables, for appellant. Amy D. Shield and Roger Levine of Shield & Levine, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee. On Motion for Clarification and Rehearing PER CURIAM. We grant Katsiaryna H. Bailor’s (“wife”) Motion for Clarification in part, deny her Motion for Rehearing En Banc and Motion for Rehearing, withdraw our June 10, 2020 opinion, and substitute the following in its place. Wife appeals a nonfinal order denying her request to relocate with the parties’ minor child, modifying timesharing, ordering wife to pay temporary child support and additional child-related expenses, and distributing the marital home to Douglass D. Bailor (“husband”). We affirm the portion of the order denying the motion for relocation, modifying timesharing, and ordering wife to pay temporary child support and related expenses without further comment. We reverse, however, the portion of the order distributing the marital home. As conceded by husband, the advance distribution of the marital home was premature considering the parties had yet to proceed to trial on the issue of equitable distribution. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. GROSS, DAMOORGIAN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer