Dawson v. Dawson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dawson v. Dawson

948 So. 2d 1026, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2608, 2007 WL 542606

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 2007

DocketNo. 5D05-3529

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 948 So. 2d 1026 (Dawson v. Dawson) 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

Dawson v. Dawson, 948 So. 2d 1026, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2608, 2007 WL 542606 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Leland V. Dawson, Jr. appeals the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Toni G. Dawson. We affirm.

In a dissolution proceeding, the trial court possesses broad discretion to do equity between the parties. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980); Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So.2d 499, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1202-03. In reviewing a dissolution judgment, this Court looks at the judgment as a whole in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So.2d 654, 657 (Fla.1991). “It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the evidence. Rather, the test is whether the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence.” Deakyne v. Deakyne, 460 So.2d 582, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citing Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla.1983)). Given the broad discre[1027]*1027tion afforded the trial court in making child custody decisions and distributing marital property, we find no error.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Leland V. Dawson, Jr. appeals the trial court’s judgment dissolving his marriage to Toni G. Dawson. We affirm.

In a dissolution proceeding, the trial court possesses broad discretion to do equity between the parties. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980); Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So.2d 499, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris, 382 So.2d at 1202-03. In reviewing a dissolution judgment, this Court looks at the judgment as a whole in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So.2d 654, 657 (Fla.1991). “It is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court through re-evaluation of the evidence. Rather, the test is whether the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence.” Deakyne v. Deakyne, 460 So.2d 582, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citing Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla.1983)). Given the broad discre[1027]*1027tion afforded the trial court in making child custody decisions and distributing marital property, we find no error.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

948 So. 2d 1026, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2608, 2007 WL 542606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawson-v-dawson-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack