Talbot v. Talbot

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Talbot v. Talbot

361 So. 2d 194, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16377

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 1978

DocketNo. 77-1959

StatusPublished

This text of 361 So. 2d 194 (Talbot v. Talbot) 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

Talbot v. Talbot, 361 So. 2d 194, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16377 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, as plaintiff, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Therein, he set forth that the parties had acquired certain properties and requested the court to make an equitable division thereof. The appellee, as respondent in the trial court, filed an answer, admitted the acquisition of properties and, likewise, requested the trial court to make a disposition thereof.

After the chancellor made such a division of the properties and awarded the wife alimony, the appellant appeals and contends first, that the trial court erred in dividing the property and, second, that he erred in the award of alimony. We find no merit in either contention. See: Baker v. Baker, 271 So.2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Walton v. Walton, 290 So.2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Lash v. Lash, 307 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Mosher v. Mosher, 321 So.2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Messer v. Messer, 342 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1975); Gratton v. Gratton, 358 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, as plaintiff, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Therein, he set forth that the parties had acquired certain properties and requested the court to make an equitable division thereof. The appellee, as respondent in the trial court, filed an answer, admitted the acquisition of properties and, likewise, requested the trial court to make a disposition thereof.

After the chancellor made such a division of the properties and awarded the wife alimony, the appellant appeals and contends first, that the trial court erred in dividing the property and, second, that he erred in the award of alimony. We find no merit in either contention. See: Baker v. Baker, 271 So.2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Walton v. Walton, 290 So.2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Lash v. Lash, 307 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Mosher v. Mosher, 321 So.2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Messer v. Messer, 342 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1975); Gratton v. Gratton, 358 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 So. 2d 194, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talbot-v-talbot-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack