Schuttler v. Schuttler

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schuttler v. Schuttler

429 So. 2d 1338, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 29073

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 20, 1983

DocketNo. 82-679

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 429 So. 2d 1338 (Schuttler v. Schuttler) 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

Schuttler v. Schuttler, 429 So. 2d 1338, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 29073 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the wife from a final judgment of dissolution. Because of the substantial disparity in the incomes of the parties, we believe the trial court erred in denying the wife’s request for attorney’s fees. We also believe the trial court erred in awarding the husband the entire proceeds of an income tax refund payable jointly to both parties. We approve the provisions for alimony and the distribution of the marital assets as being within the bounds of discretion set out in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We are simply not permitted to substitute our opinion on those issues if reasonable persons could differ as to the results.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

ANSTEAD, BERANEK, and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the wife from a final judgment of dissolution. Because of the substantial disparity in the incomes of the parties, we believe the trial court erred in denying the wife’s request for attorney’s fees. We also believe the trial court erred in awarding the husband the entire proceeds of an income tax refund payable jointly to both parties. We approve the provisions for alimony and the distribution of the marital assets as being within the bounds of discretion set out in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We are simply not permitted to substitute our opinion on those issues if reasonable persons could differ as to the results.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

ANSTEAD, BERANEK, and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 So. 2d 1338, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 29073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuttler-v-schuttler-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack