Blaty v. Blaty

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blaty v. Blaty

443 So. 2d 297, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25367

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 27, 1983

DocketNo. 83-843

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 443 So. 2d 297 (Blaty v. Blaty) 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

Blaty v. Blaty, 443 So. 2d 297, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

The husband appeals the trial court’s order (1) awarding the wife his interest in the marital home; (2) requiring the husband to provide the wife with a new car titled in her name; and (3) directing the husband to repay the $10,500 life insurance loan.

Upon careful review of the record, and mindful of the trial court’s superi- or vantage point, we cannot reach the conclusion that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Determining, on the contrary, that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the trial court's action, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla.1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

Affirmed.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

The husband appeals the trial court’s order (1) awarding the wife his interest in the marital home; (2) requiring the husband to provide the wife with a new car titled in her name; and (3) directing the husband to repay the $10,500 life insurance loan.

Upon careful review of the record, and mindful of the trial court’s superi- or vantage point, we cannot reach the conclusion that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Determining, on the contrary, that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the trial court's action, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla.1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 So. 2d 297, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blaty-v-blaty-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack