Alexander v. Alexander

473 So. 2d 236, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1707
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 10, 1985
Docket84-2236
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 473 So. 2d 236 (Alexander v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alexander v. Alexander, 473 So. 2d 236, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1707 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

473 So.2d 236 (1985)

Jo Ann C. ALEXANDER, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
William A. ALEXANDER, III, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 84-2236.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 10, 1985.
Rehearing Denied August 1, 1985.

*237 Seymore A. Gordon of Gay & Gordon Attorneys, P.A., and Carl T. Boake, St. Petersburg, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Gary Urso of N. David Korones, P.A., Clearwater, for appellee/cross-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

While there are serious issues raised below and on this appeal, the evidence before the trial court was conflicting on nearly every issue. The trial judge, of necessity, was required to accept some evidence and testimony and reject other. We are certainly in no position to, nor do we desire to, second-guess the trial judge.

We also conclude that the trial judge acted within his discretion in rejecting some proffered expert testimony as being not properly reliable. He properly rejected other testimony as being hearsay.

The trial judge divided the residential custody of the parties' two-year-old daughter six months with each party until the child reaches school age. We feel that the expert testimony received on the subject of the child's custody properly supported the special circumstances contemplated in Wonsetler v. Wonsetler, 240 So.2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).

In regard to appellee's cross-appeal, we determine that there was sufficient evidence to support the denial of the husband's claimed special equity in the home the parties occupied during their marriage. The home was titled in the wife's name and was acquired by her prior to the parties' marriage.

Affirmed.

RYDER, C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bainbridge v. Pratt
68 So. 3d 310 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Chapman v. Prevatt
845 So. 2d 976 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Boardman v. Roy
775 So. 2d 334 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Bracken v. Bracken
704 So. 2d 746 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Ruffridge v. Ruffridge
687 So. 2d 48 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Langford v. Ortiz
654 So. 2d 1237 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Parker v. Parker
553 So. 2d 309 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
In Interest of SMH
531 So. 2d 228 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
473 So. 2d 236, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-alexander-fladistctapp-1985.