Ramos v. Ramos

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ramos v. Ramos

219 So. 3d 263, 2017 WL 2264600, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 2017

DocketNo. 3D16-2541

StatusPublished

This text of 219 So. 3d 263 (Ramos v. Ramos) 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

Ramos v. Ramos, 219 So. 3d 263, 2017 WL 2264600, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7524 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John E. Ramos, pro se, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, claiming that the written order contains findings that to do not comport with the court’s oral rulings at the final hearing, and that the court erred in permitting the appellee’s counsel in the divorce proceedings to submit a proposed final judgment for the court’s consideration. Concluding that no error has been demonstrated by the record before us, we affirm. See Valladares v. Junco-Valladares, 30 So.3d 519, 522-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The standard of review for divorce proceedings is abuse of discretion. ‘The findings and judgment of the trial court come to us clothed with a presumption of correctness and may not be disturbed upon appeal in the absence of a record demonstrating errors of law.’” (quoting Merritt v. Williams, 295 So.2d 310, 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974))); Bryan v. Bryan, 930 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (recognizing that, in a marital dissolution proceeding, the trial court may permit either party, or both parties, to submit a proposed final judgment).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

John E. Ramos, pro se, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, claiming that the written order contains findings that to do not comport with the court’s oral rulings at the final hearing, and that the court erred in permitting the appellee’s counsel in the divorce proceedings to submit a proposed final judgment for the court’s consideration. Concluding that no error has been demonstrated by the record before us, we affirm. See Valladares v. Junco-Valladares, 30 So.3d 519, 522-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The standard of review for divorce proceedings is abuse of discretion. ‘The findings and judgment of the trial court come to us clothed with a presumption of correctness and may not be disturbed upon appeal in the absence of a record demonstrating errors of law.’” (quoting Merritt v. Williams, 295 So.2d 310, 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974))); Bryan v. Bryan, 930 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (recognizing that, in a marital dissolution proceeding, the trial court may permit either party, or both parties, to submit a proposed final judgment).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 So. 3d 263, 2017 WL 2264600, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-ramos-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack