Schaeffer v. Schaeffer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schaeffer v. Schaeffer

606 So. 2d 369, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5449, 1992 WL 109123

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 26, 1992

DocketNo. 90-2346

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 606 So. 2d 369 (Schaeffer v. Schaeffer) 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

Schaeffer v. Schaeffer, 606 So. 2d 369, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5449, 1992 WL 109123 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

After a marriage of some twenty odd years, the trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution and divided the marital assets with a gross value per the final judgment of several million dollars. The record is susceptible to the view that the wife received approximately $1,218,556.00 of which approximately $700,000.00 was liquid amounts and the husband received approximately $1,251,243.00, with liquid assets of approximately $100,000.00. No alimony or attorney’s fees were awarded in the trial court. The record also shows that during the course of the marriage, the parties (with the wife’s approval) gave substantial sums of money to their children. After the separation of the parties, the husband created inter vivos trusts for the children in the amount of $300,000.00. The creation of the children’s trusts was consistent with the actions of the parties during the marriage.

The wife appeals seeking alimony, attorney’s fees, a review of the amount she was required to pay for child support, and a review of the division of marital assets.

The husband cross-appeals the failure of the trial court to accord him an alleged special equity in certain of the marital assets.

We find no error in any rulings of the trial court and affirm. Schutz v. Schutz, 581 So.2d 1290 (Fla.1991); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Spillert v. Spillert, 564 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); rev. denied 576 So.2d 291 (Fla.1990); Kozak v. Kozak, 507 So.2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Zalis v. Zalis, 498 So.2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Antonini v. Antonini, 473 So.2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Affirmed.

BARKDULL and GERSTEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

After a marriage of some twenty odd years, the trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution and divided the marital assets with a gross value per the final judgment of several million dollars. The record is susceptible to the view that the wife received approximately $1,218,556.00 of which approximately $700,000.00 was liquid amounts and the husband received approximately $1,251,243.00, with liquid assets of approximately $100,000.00. No alimony or attorney’s fees were awarded in the trial court. The record also shows that during the course of the marriage, the parties (with the wife’s approval) gave substantial sums of money to their children. After the separation of the parties, the husband created inter vivos trusts for the children in the amount of $300,000.00. The creation of the children’s trusts was consistent with the actions of the parties during the marriage.

The wife appeals seeking alimony, attorney’s fees, a review of the amount she was required to pay for child support, and a review of the division of marital assets.

The husband cross-appeals the failure of the trial court to accord him an alleged special equity in certain of the marital assets.

We find no error in any rulings of the trial court and affirm. Schutz v. Schutz, 581 So.2d 1290 (Fla.1991); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Spillert v. Spillert, 564 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); rev. denied 576 So.2d 291 (Fla.1990); Kozak v. Kozak, 507 So.2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Zalis v. Zalis, 498 So.2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Antonini v. Antonini, 473 So.2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Affirmed.

BARKDULL and GERSTEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 So. 2d 369, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5449, 1992 WL 109123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaeffer-v-schaeffer-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack