Llewellyn v. Llewellyn

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Llewellyn v. Llewellyn

363 So. 2d 1174, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16943

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 1978

DocketNo. 78-306

StatusPublished

This text of 363 So. 2d 1174 (Llewellyn v. Llewellyn) 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

Llewellyn v. Llewellyn, 363 So. 2d 1174, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16943 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant/respondent/wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which, in substance, (1) dissolved her thirty-one year marriage to appellee/petitioner/husband; (2) found that appellant had failed to prove that she was entitled to a special equity in any property of the husband and had failed to prove that she was entitled to alimony of any nature; (3) and found that appellant had sufficient financial resources and income to secure and pay for the services of an attorney. We affirm.

Appellant contends that the chancellor abused his discretion in refusing to award her (1) a special equity in appellee’s property, (2) alimony, and (3) attorney’s fees. The record, however, reveals that the chancellor’s findings have strong record support. In particular, we note that the parties had been separated for approximately seven years prior to the dissolution. During that [1175]*1175time, the income of appellant, a successful stock broker, was relatively equal to that of appellee, a real estate salesman. In addition, we note that appellant had supported herself during the seven year separation without the financial aid of appellee.

As the chancellor’s findings were based upon competent substantial evidence, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Bucci v. Bucci, 350 So.2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Lytton v. Lytton, 289 So.2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant/respondent/wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which, in substance, (1) dissolved her thirty-one year marriage to appellee/petitioner/husband; (2) found that appellant had failed to prove that she was entitled to a special equity in any property of the husband and had failed to prove that she was entitled to alimony of any nature; (3) and found that appellant had sufficient financial resources and income to secure and pay for the services of an attorney. We affirm.

Appellant contends that the chancellor abused his discretion in refusing to award her (1) a special equity in appellee’s property, (2) alimony, and (3) attorney’s fees. The record, however, reveals that the chancellor’s findings have strong record support. In particular, we note that the parties had been separated for approximately seven years prior to the dissolution. During that [1175]*1175time, the income of appellant, a successful stock broker, was relatively equal to that of appellee, a real estate salesman. In addition, we note that appellant had supported herself during the seven year separation without the financial aid of appellee.

As the chancellor’s findings were based upon competent substantial evidence, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Bucci v. Bucci, 350 So.2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Lytton v. Lytton, 289 So.2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 So. 2d 1174, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/llewellyn-v-llewellyn-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack