Fourcand v. FOURCAND

985 So. 2d 60, 2008 WL 2465468
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 20, 2008
Docket5D07-1780
StatusPublished

This text of 985 So. 2d 60 (Fourcand v. FOURCAND) 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
Fourcand v. FOURCAND, 985 So. 2d 60, 2008 WL 2465468 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

985 So.2d 60 (2008)

Guirla FOURCAND, Appellant,
v.
Enick FOURCAND, Appellee.

No. 5D07-1780.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 20, 2008.

*61 Robert J. Wheelock, Eric Lee Bensen and Michael B. Jones, of the Wheelock Law Firm, LLC, Orlando, for Appellant.

Terry L. Bledsoe, of Law Offices of Terry L. Bledsoe, P.A, Longwood, for Appellee.

PALMER, C.J.

Guirla Fourcand (wife) appeals the trial court's final order dissolving the parties' marriage. Determining that the trial court committed no reversible error, we affirm.

The wife's main argument on appeal is that the trial court reversibly erred in denying her motion to open the case based upon the alleged incompetence of her trial counsel, said motion having been filed after the trial court orally announced its findings at the conclusion of the dissolution hearing. We disagree.

The trial court's grant or denial of a motion to open, modify, or vacate a judgment of dissolution of marriage lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Paris v. Paris, 412 So.2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

In this case, the wife's motion set forth the additional evidence she would have presented to the court if her motion to open was granted. The trial court which heard the motion and which presided over the dissolution hearing was in the best position to determine whether to allow the case to be opened to present this additional evidence. Nothing in the record supports the wife's contention that the failure to open case was an abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Paris v. Paris
412 So. 2d 952 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
985 So. 2d 60, 2008 WL 2465468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fourcand-v-fourcand-fladistctapp-2008.