Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Richard C. MOORE, Appellant, v. Sally R. MOORE, Appellee.
In this post-dissolution proceeding, Richard C. Moore (“Former Husband”) appeals an order granting in part Sally R. Moore's (“Former Wife”) Motions for Contempt and Enforcement of the 2003 Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage that incorporated the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), and a Supplemental Final Judgment granting Former Husband's request to terminate his alimony obligations under the MSA. Former Husband argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred when it (1) failed to provide him with a credit for $11,000 in payments made as a reimbursement to Former Wife for her share in a retirement account (the “VIP account”), and (2) rejected his laches defense to Former Wife's claim for alimony arrearages. We reverse as to the $11,000 credit, but otherwise affirm.
Former Wife concedes that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Former Husband already reimbursed Former Wife $11,000 toward the VIP account. See, e.g., Ponce v. Ponce, 997 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Nevertheless, Former Wife argues that Former Husband waived this credit at trial. We have reviewed the transcript and disagree that any credit for reimbursement of the VIP account was waived. We therefore reverse and remand on this ground.
We otherwise affirm, and specifically reject Former Husband's argument that Former Wife's claims are barred by laches because the order is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Flaherty v. Flaherty, 128 So. 3d 920, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“The trial court's application of the doctrine of laches ‘is reviewed for abuse of discretion, provided that there is competent, substantial evidence for each element of the doctrine.’ ” (quoting Dep't of Rev. ex rel. Thorman v. Holley, 86 So. 3d 1199, 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012))); Ticktin v. Kearin, 807 So. 2d 659, 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“Laches is an omission to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party.”).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
PER CURIAM.
EDWARDS, EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D20-981
Decided: June 25, 2021
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)