Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

227 So. 3d 768

Bailey v. Bailey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 16, 2017

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2017-10-16

Decided 2017-10-16

PER CURIAM.

¶1In this post-dissolution appeal, we agree with the former wife that the trial court erred in requiring the parties to equally split the responsibility of transportation for timesharing because that issue was not pled or tried by consent. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the challenged order. In all other respects, we affirm the order.1

¶2AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.

¶3. Unlike the former wife, we do not read the order to modify the limitation on overnights embodied in the consent final judgment. Instead, as the former husband conceded in his brief, "he is still limited to 130 overnights."

/227/so3d/768 · .json · Public domain