Denise M. Terry v. Douglas J. Terry

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DENISE M. TERRY, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS J. TERRY, Appellee. No. 4D14-2214 [September 16, 2015] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Amy L. Smith, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2012DR010574XXXXNB. Jeffrey Begens of Law Office of Jeffrey Begens, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant. Benjamin T. Hodas and Michelle North Berg of Law Office of Benjamin T. Hodas, LLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The former wife appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment of dissolution. The former wife raises six arguments. We affirm without discussion on two of those arguments by concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in: (1) not awarding the former wife any costs and attorney’s fees in addition to those costs and attorney’s fees which the court granted on a temporary basis (see former wife’s argument I); and (2) not equitably valuing or dividing the former wife’s alleged loans from her parents (see former wife’s argument IV). On the former wife’s other four arguments, the former husband concedes to those arguments. We agree with those concessions. Therefore, we conclude the circuit court erred in: (1) equitably dividing and awarding the former husband’s New Jersey pension which the parties dissipated during the action’s pendency (see former wife’s arguments II and VI); (2) equitably dividing the parties’ furniture and furnishings where the parties stipulated that such property would not be equitably divided (see former wife’s argument III); and (3) failing to equitably value or divide the former husband’s Town of Palm Beach pension (see former wife’s argument V). We remand for the circuit court to revise the equitable distribution schedule based on these arguments only. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.