Krutel v. Krutel
This text of 411 So. 2d 318 (Krutel v. Krutel) 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.
Opinion
The final judgment of dissolution is affirmed on the grounds that (a) the record clearly demonstrates that the parties stipulated to the matters now appealed, Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank, 252 So.2d 1 (Fla.1971); Dorson v. Dorson, 393 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Groover v. Groover, 383 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co., N.A., 374 So.2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 202 (Fla.1980); Barr v. Ehrlich, 301 So.2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Curr v. Helene Transportation Corp., 287 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), and (b) no error or abuse of the trial court’s discretion has been shown, Canakaris v. Ganakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
411 So. 2d 318, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krutel-v-krutel-fladistctapp-1982.