Gieseke v. Gieseke

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gieseke v. Gieseke

508 So. 2d 54, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1460, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8667

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 10, 1987

DocketNos. 85-238, 85-876

StatusPublished

This text of 508 So. 2d 54 (Gieseke v. Gieseke) 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

Gieseke v. Gieseke, 508 So. 2d 54, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1460, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8667 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gary Gieseke appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and post-judgment contempt order; Haydee Gieseke cross appeals the final judgment. Recognizing that reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the trial court’s rulings, we find no abuse of discretion in the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets or in the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. We therefore affirm the final judgment. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Gellman v. Wolf, 424 So.2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Hartley v. Hartley, 399 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We also affirm the contempt order. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Cobb v. Cobb, 399 So.2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Gersten v. Gersten, 281 So.2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); §§ 61.1301, 181, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1984).

AFFIRMED.

BASKIN, NATALIE, PEARSON, DANIEL S., and FERGUSON, WILKIE D., JR., Associate Judges, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gary Gieseke appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and post-judgment contempt order; Haydee Gieseke cross appeals the final judgment. Recognizing that reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the trial court’s rulings, we find no abuse of discretion in the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets or in the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. We therefore affirm the final judgment. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Gellman v. Wolf, 424 So.2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Hartley v. Hartley, 399 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We also affirm the contempt order. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Cobb v. Cobb, 399 So.2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Gersten v. Gersten, 281 So.2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); §§ 61.1301, 181, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1984).

AFFIRMED.

BASKIN, NATALIE, PEARSON, DANIEL S., and FERGUSON, WILKIE D., JR., Associate Judges, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 54, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1460, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gieseke-v-gieseke-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack