Mullins v. Mullins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mullins v. Mullins

460 So. 2d 566, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 73, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16117

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1984

DocketNo. 84-617

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 460 So. 2d 566 (Mullins v. Mullins) 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

Mullins v. Mullins, 460 So. 2d 566, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 73, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16117 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former wife Frances M. Mullins appeals a final judgment of marriage dissolution and contends that (1) the trial court erred in not awarding her the former husband John Mullins’ entire interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony; (2) the trial court erred in its award of equitable distribution; and (3) the trial court erred in awarding her an inadequate monthly amount of permanent, periodic alimony.

We reject these points and affirm because to do otherwise would be to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact and matters of discretion. There was a reasonable basis in this record for the trial court’s decision on each of the points complained of, and we remain unconvinced that no reasonable trier of fact could have reached the decision that the trial court did here. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla.1983); Conner v. Conner, 439 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Green v. Green, 442 So.2d 354 (Fla.1st DCA 1983).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former wife Frances M. Mullins appeals a final judgment of marriage dissolution and contends that (1) the trial court erred in not awarding her the former husband John Mullins’ entire interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony; (2) the trial court erred in its award of equitable distribution; and (3) the trial court erred in awarding her an inadequate monthly amount of permanent, periodic alimony.

We reject these points and affirm because to do otherwise would be to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact and matters of discretion. There was a reasonable basis in this record for the trial court’s decision on each of the points complained of, and we remain unconvinced that no reasonable trier of fact could have reached the decision that the trial court did here. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla.1983); Conner v. Conner, 439 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Green v. Green, 442 So.2d 354 (Fla.1st DCA 1983).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 So. 2d 566, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 73, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullins-v-mullins-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack