New Sunrise Investment Corp. v. Rubin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

New Sunrise Investment Corp. v. Rubin

526 So. 2d 701, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1070, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1763, 1988 WL 40527

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 1988

DocketNos. 86-2978, 86-3001

StatusPublished

This text of 526 So. 2d 701 (New Sunrise Investment Corp. v. Rubin) 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

New Sunrise Investment Corp. v. Rubin, 526 So. 2d 701, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1070, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1763, 1988 WL 40527 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The consolidated appeals of Jack Cohen and the New Sunrise Investment Corporation from judgments in favor of Sandra Rubin (f/k/a Sandra Cohen) for attorney’s fees were heard in this, the twelfth year of litigation for this cause.

Jack Cohen appeals an award of $131,665 to Sandra Rubin as reasonable attorney’s [702]*702fees for 1,580 hours arising out of the July 1981 post-dissolution judgment. New Sunrise appeals an award of $46,805 arising out of the April 1986 judgment setting aside Jack Cohen’s fraudulent conveyances of approximately 70 properties to New Sunrise Investment Corporation in an attempt to conceal his assets prior to filing for divorce from Sandra. That corporation’s inferred presumption that this court’s one word per curiam affirmance of the April 9, 1986 judgment implied that New Sunrise’s attempted misapplication of the statute of limitations in that appeal was not improper or frivolous, is without merit.

We have carefully considered the judgments appealed in the light of the record on appeal, the briefs and arguments of counsel and, based upon equitable considerations, we find the remaining issues raised by the appellants to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgments appealed from are affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The consolidated appeals of Jack Cohen and the New Sunrise Investment Corporation from judgments in favor of Sandra Rubin (f/k/a Sandra Cohen) for attorney’s fees were heard in this, the twelfth year of litigation for this cause.

Jack Cohen appeals an award of $131,665 to Sandra Rubin as reasonable attorney’s [702]*702fees for 1,580 hours arising out of the July 1981 post-dissolution judgment. New Sunrise appeals an award of $46,805 arising out of the April 1986 judgment setting aside Jack Cohen’s fraudulent conveyances of approximately 70 properties to New Sunrise Investment Corporation in an attempt to conceal his assets prior to filing for divorce from Sandra. That corporation’s inferred presumption that this court’s one word per curiam affirmance of the April 9, 1986 judgment implied that New Sunrise’s attempted misapplication of the statute of limitations in that appeal was not improper or frivolous, is without merit.

We have carefully considered the judgments appealed in the light of the record on appeal, the briefs and arguments of counsel and, based upon equitable considerations, we find the remaining issues raised by the appellants to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgments appealed from are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 So. 2d 701, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1070, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1763, 1988 WL 40527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-sunrise-investment-corp-v-rubin-fladistctapp-1988.