Hatfield v. Hatfield

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hatfield v. Hatfield

384 So. 2d 889, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16899

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1143

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 384 So. 2d 889 (Hatfield v. Hatfield) 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

Hatfield v. Hatfield, 384 So. 2d 889, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16899 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of marriage dissolution under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the trial court on this record properly exercised its discretion in taking testimony on, and thereafter declining to approve a prior property settlement agreement between the parties, Harris v. Harris, 291 So.2d 95 (Fla.1st DCA 1974); Risteen v. Risteen, 280 So.2d 488 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); (b) the wife acquiesced in, and did not object to the court’s ruling on the taking of oral depositions¹ and, accordingly did not properly preserve such ruling for appellate review, Karl v. David Ritter Sportsservice, Inc., 164 So.2d 23 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); and (c) the awards to the wife and children were well within the trial court’s discretion to enter. Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 371 So.2d 672 (Fla.1979), adopting 352 So.2d 867 (Fla.3d DCA 1977) (Hubbart, J., dissenting); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So.2d 766 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So.2d 371 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).

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

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of marriage dissolution under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the trial court on this record properly exercised its discretion in taking testimony on, and thereafter declining to approve a prior property settlement agreement between the parties, Harris v. Harris, 291 So.2d 95 (Fla.1st DCA 1974); Risteen v. Risteen, 280 So.2d 488 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); (b) the wife acquiesced in, and did not object to the court’s ruling on the taking of oral depositions¹ and, accordingly did not properly preserve such ruling for appellate review, Karl v. David Ritter Sportsservice, Inc., 164 So.2d 23 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); and (c) the awards to the wife and children were well within the trial court’s discretion to enter. Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 371 So.2d 672 (Fla.1979), adopting 352 So.2d 867 (Fla.3d DCA 1977) (Hubbart, J., dissenting); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So.2d 766 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So.2d 371 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 So. 2d 889, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatfield-v-hatfield-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack