Medina v. Medina

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Medina v. Medina

586 So. 2d 1346, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 15196, 1991 WL 205831

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2655

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 586 So. 2d 1346 (Medina v. Medina) 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

Medina v. Medina, 586 So. 2d 1346, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 15196, 1991 WL 205831 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Medina appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. First, we conclude that there was substantial competent evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that the wife, appellee Lucrecia Medina, had made a loan to the husband from her separate funds that she brought to the marriage. Judgment was properly entered in her favor for that amount. Second, we conclude that the trial court acted within the bounds of sound discretion in ordering payment of rehabilitative alimony to the wife. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Although there was disputed evidence with respect to the wife’s need and the husband’s ability to pay, those evidentiary matters were resolved in the wife’s favor. The order granting attorney’s fees to the wife is likewise affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Medina appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. First, we conclude that there was substantial competent evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that the wife, appellee Lucrecia Medina, had made a loan to the husband from her separate funds that she brought to the marriage. Judgment was properly entered in her favor for that amount. Second, we conclude that the trial court acted within the bounds of sound discretion in ordering payment of rehabilitative alimony to the wife. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Although there was disputed evidence with respect to the wife’s need and the husband’s ability to pay, those evidentiary matters were resolved in the wife’s favor. The order granting attorney’s fees to the wife is likewise affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

586 So. 2d 1346, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 15196, 1991 WL 205831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-medina-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack