Hudson v. Hudson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hudson v. Hudson

226 So. 2d 696, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5343

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 26, 1969

DocketNo. 2389

StatusPublished

This text of 226 So. 2d 696 (Hudson v. Hudson) 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

Hudson v. Hudson, 226 So. 2d 696, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5343 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant husband appeals from a final decree of divorce, complaining of an award to the wife of a special equity in the marital domicile of the parties and of the amount awarded the wife for alimony and attorney’s fees. The record contains substantial competent evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding of a special equity in favor of the wife, Sharpe v. Sharpe, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 822. Likewise, there is a substantial evidentiary basis for the award of alimony and attorney’s fees to the wife and there being no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in regard to these items, they will not be disturbed on appeal. Bencomo v. Bencomo, Fla.App. [697]*6971967, 195 So.2d 874; Farr v. Farr, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 890.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and OWEN, J., and Mac-MILLAN, HUGH, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant husband appeals from a final decree of divorce, complaining of an award to the wife of a special equity in the marital domicile of the parties and of the amount awarded the wife for alimony and attorney’s fees. The record contains substantial competent evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding of a special equity in favor of the wife, Sharpe v. Sharpe, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 822. Likewise, there is a substantial evidentiary basis for the award of alimony and attorney’s fees to the wife and there being no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in regard to these items, they will not be disturbed on appeal. Bencomo v. Bencomo, Fla.App. [697]*6971967, 195 So.2d 874; Farr v. Farr, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 890.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and OWEN, J., and Mac-MILLAN, HUGH, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 So. 2d 696, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-hudson-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack