Malley v. Malley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Malley v. Malley

603 So. 2d 4, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7657, 1992 WL 146980

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 1, 1992·No. No. 91-2489·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Lanigan v. Lanigan, 78 So.2d 92 (Fla.1955). As to the claims that the court erred in refusing to determine alimony and equitable distribution irrespective of the court’s determination that the prior Mexican divorce decree was valid, the simple response is that no request for such a determination was made, either in the pleadings, opening and closing arguments or upon the trial court’s announcement of its judgment. Further, we find no abuse of discretion as to the court’s determination of the attorney’s fees issue.

[5] GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Lanigan v. Lanigan, 78 So.2d 92 (Fla.1955). As to the claims that the court erred in refusing to determine alimony and equitable distribution irrespective of the court’s determination that the prior Mexican divorce decree was valid, the simple response is that no request for such a determination was made, either in the pleadings, opening and closing arguments or upon the trial court’s announcement of its judgment. Further, we find no abuse of discretion as to the court’s determination of the attorney’s fees issue.

[5] GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Senior Judge, concur.

Malley v. Malley, 603 So. 2d 4, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7657, 1992 WL 146980 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

603 So. 2d 4 (Malley v. Malley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related