Barrett v. Manus

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barrett v. Manus

199 So. 2d 307, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4865

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 7, 1967

DocketNo. 986

StatusPublished

This text of 199 So. 2d 307 (Barrett v. Manus) 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

Barrett v. Manus, 199 So. 2d 307, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4865 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The attorneys, John R. Barrett et al., for Adele Manus, the plaintiff, appeal an order dismissing the action for divorce against Allen S. Manus in which a number of corporations were made parties. The order appealed from reserved jurisdiction of one of the corporate defendants which allegedly holds property of the husband. The stated purpose of retaining jurisdiction in this [308]*308instance is to provide an asset out of which fees, if any, found to be due the attorneys for the wife could be paid.

The matter of the sufficiency and availability of the assets for the stated purpose is a matter to be determined in the sound discretion of the trial court. A careful review of the appeal papers, briefs and arguments of the counsel for the parties reveals no abuse of such discretion.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The attorneys, John R. Barrett et al., for Adele Manus, the plaintiff, appeal an order dismissing the action for divorce against Allen S. Manus in which a number of corporations were made parties. The order appealed from reserved jurisdiction of one of the corporate defendants which allegedly holds property of the husband. The stated purpose of retaining jurisdiction in this [308]*308instance is to provide an asset out of which fees, if any, found to be due the attorneys for the wife could be paid.

The matter of the sufficiency and availability of the assets for the stated purpose is a matter to be determined in the sound discretion of the trial court. A careful review of the appeal papers, briefs and arguments of the counsel for the parties reveals no abuse of such discretion.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 So. 2d 307, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-manus-fladistctapp-1967.