From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bailey v. Bailey

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Aug 24, 1978
361 So. 2d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Opinion

No. II-383.

July 20, 1978. Rehearing Denied August 24, 1978.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jackson County, W.L. Bailey, J.

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

Robert B. Staats, Panama City, for appellee.


Appellant/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.

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 D.C.A. 1976).

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

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


Summaries of

Bailey v. Bailey

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Aug 24, 1978
361 So. 2d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
Case details for

Bailey v. Bailey

Case Details

Full title:MARY TOOLE BAILEY, APPELLANT, v. OSWALD SAMUEL BAILEY, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Aug 24, 1978

Citations

361 So. 2d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Citing Cases

Zeller v. Zeller

These awards are proper because they are in the nature of maintenance and support. Alford v. Alford, 364…

Smith v. Smith

We think, therefore, that there is no basis for declining to grant the wife the right to occupy the residence…