Propps v. Propps

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Propps v. Propps

547 So. 2d 1264, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1982, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4737, 1989 WL 97678

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2918

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 547 So. 2d 1264 (Propps v. Propps) 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

Propps v. Propps, 547 So. 2d 1264, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1982, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4737, 1989 WL 97678 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the former husband Arch L. Propps from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which three points on appeal are raised. We find no merit in any of these points and affirm.

First, we conclude that the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in admitting in evidence the testimony of all the witnesses and exhibits offered at trial by the former wife Mercedes B. Propps despite the husband’s initial objection based on the wife’s failure to comply with the trial court’s pretrial order concerning the disclosure of witnesses and exhibits to be used at trial. This is so because the point has not been properly preserved for appellate review. Although the former husband objected to the complained-of evidence when introduced, the trial court reserved ruling thereon; thereafter, the former husband never sought a ruling on his objection and the matter was never again discussed at trial. This being so, it is plain that the former husband, in effect, abandoned his objection to the subject evidence and has waived the point for appellate review. Schreidell v. State, 500 So.2d 228, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987); Tieso v. Metropolitan Dade County, 426 So.2d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 440 So.2d 353 (Fla.1983); Le Retilley v. Harris, 354 So.2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1978).

Second, we conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error in awarding one half of the GNMA security investment to the former wife as this security was placed in a joint account by the former husband and thus constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution. Third, we conclude that no abuse of discretion is shown in the trial court’s award of periodic alimony, lump sum alimony, and distribution of marital assets. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976).

The final judgment of dissolution of marriage is therefore, in all respects,

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the former husband Arch L. Propps from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which three points on appeal are raised. We find no merit in any of these points and affirm.

First, we conclude that the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in admitting in evidence the testimony of all the witnesses and exhibits offered at trial by the former wife Mercedes B. Propps despite the husband’s initial objection based on the wife’s failure to comply with the trial court’s pretrial order concerning the disclosure of witnesses and exhibits to be used at trial. This is so because the point has not been properly preserved for appellate review. Although the former husband objected to the complained-of evidence when introduced, the trial court reserved ruling thereon; thereafter, the former husband never sought a ruling on his objection and the matter was never again discussed at trial. This being so, it is plain that the former husband, in effect, abandoned his objection to the subject evidence and has waived the point for appellate review. Schreidell v. State, 500 So.2d 228, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987); Tieso v. Metropolitan Dade County, 426 So.2d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 440 So.2d 353 (Fla.1983); Le Retilley v. Harris, 354 So.2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1978).

Second, we conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error in awarding one half of the GNMA security investment to the former wife as this security was placed in a joint account by the former husband and thus constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution. Third, we conclude that no abuse of discretion is shown in the trial court’s award of periodic alimony, lump sum alimony, and distribution of marital assets. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976).

The final judgment of dissolution of marriage is therefore, in all respects,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 So. 2d 1264, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1982, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4737, 1989 WL 97678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/propps-v-propps-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack