Stevens v. Stevens

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stevens v. Stevens

408 So. 2d 745, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18925

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 12, 1982·No. No. 81-357·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error or abuse of discretion has been demonstrated by the appellant with respect to the trial judge’s rulings which (a) limited evidence at the hearing to the three issues remaining for disposition pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to the division of jointly owned real properties; (b) ordered the wife to pay the husband his share of the net proceeds from the sale of the Varela Street property; and (c) denied the wife alimony and attorneys fees. Quick v. Leatherman, 96 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1957); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). No reversible error having been demonstrated, the final judgment under review is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error or abuse of discretion has been demonstrated by the appellant with respect to the trial judge’s rulings which (a) limited evidence at the hearing to the three issues remaining for disposition pursuant to the parties’ stipulation to the division of jointly owned real properties; (b) ordered the wife to pay the husband his share of the net proceeds from the sale of the Varela Street property; and (c) denied the wife alimony and attorneys fees. Quick v. Leatherman, 96 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1957); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). No reversible error having been demonstrated, the final judgment under review is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Stevens v. Stevens, 408 So. 2d 745, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18925 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

408 So. 2d 745 (Stevens v. Stevens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related