Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

361 So. 2d 204

Docket No. II-383.

Bailey v. Bailey

Mary Toole BAILEY, Appellant, v. Oswald Samuel BAILEY, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 20, 1978.

Rehearing Denied August 24, 1978.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1978-07-20

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1986

7 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We do find merit, however, in the point raised by husband on cross-appeal. He contends that the trial court erred in limiting his use and possession of the marital home to a period of approximately one year. We agree that he as the custodial parent should have the use and possession of the home until the child's majority or his remarriage. See McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So.2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 378 So. 2d 11 - Smith v. Smith

Relies on McNaughton v. McNaughton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-07-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*205 M. Stephen Turner and Joseph P. Mawhinney of Thompson, Wadsworth, Messer, Turner & Rhodes, Tallahassee, and Carroll L. McCauley, Panama City, for appellant.

¶2Robert B. Staats, Panama City, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant/wife contends on this appeal that the trial court erred in awarding the custody of the parties' minor son to the appellee/husband. After careful consideration of the transcript, the briefs, and the oral argument, we have found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's judgment that the best interests of the child would be served by this award.

¶5We do find merit, however, in the point raised by husband on cross-appeal. He contends that the trial court erred in limiting his use and possession of the marital home to a period of approximately one year. We agree that he as the custodial parent should have the use and possession of the home until the child's majority or his remarriage. See McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So.2d 673 (Fla.3d D.C.A. 1976).

¶6The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case remanded for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.

¶7McCORD, C.J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

/361/so2d/204 · .json · Public domain