Ramos v. Ramos

219 So. 3d 263, 2017 WL 2264600, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7524
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 24, 2017·No. No. 3D16-2541·Published

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

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

219 So. 3d 263 (Ramos v. Ramos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Valladares v. Junco-Valladares
30 So. 3d 519 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Bryan v. Bryan
930 So. 2d 693 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Merritt v. Williams
295 So. 2d 310 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)