ROXANNE D. PULITZER, APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT PULITZER, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Roxanne Pulitzer appealed a final judgment in a contested dissolution of marriage involving determinations of child residence, alimony, and property rights following an 18-day trial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, finding no abuse of discretion or reversible error in the evidentiary rulings, financial determinations, or custody decision.
The court affirmed all aspects of the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the evidentiary rulings and holding that even if such rulings were erroneous, they were harmless in light of the totality of evidence. The court also affirmed the financial determinations regarding equitable distribution and alimony, and affirmed the custody determination, which was supported by abundant competent evidence.
[1] A trial court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] Evidentiary errors in a dissolution of marriage action are considered harmless if they do not affect the totality of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The case was an eighteen (18) day trial with a record of 4,920 pages where it appears that every possible avenue and nuance were explored.”
Establishes the extensive nature of the trial proceedings and the comprehensive record that formed the basis for the appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a contested dissolution of marriage that proceeded to an 18-day trial with a 4,920-page record. The trial court made determinations …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in a contested dissolution of marriage action. Determinations were made as to child residence, alimony and property rights. The Wife appeals. We affirm.
The case was an eighteen (18) day trial with a record of 4,920 pages where it appears that every possible avenue and nuance were explored. The evidence was exhaustively considered as attested by the detailed eighteen (18) page final judgment entered in the circuit court.
From an appellate viewpoint, where we search to see if reversible error has been made to appear, the case presented is a non-noteworthy one insofar as novel or complex legal problems are concerned.
Six appellate points are presented by the Wife. We have viewed and assessed each of them, aided by the briefs, arguments of counsel, and examination of the record.
The appellate points may be grouped and treated as follows:
EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
Wife’s Points
1. The trial court erred in allowing the Husband to present testimony and evidence in violation of the letter and spirit of the court’s pre-trial order. 2. The trial court erred in refusing to allow the Wife to introduce evidence and testimony concerning two “separation and property settlement agreements” proposed by the Husband pri-or to the institution of this action.
3. The trial court erred in permitting the Husband to provide to the trial judge a transcript representing only the Husband’s portion of the case.
We have analyzed these rulings and hold that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated as to them. Schwartz v. Schwartz, 431 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Palmar v. Palmar, 402 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hartley v. Hartley, 399 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). Moreover, in light of the totality of the evidence, even if it be assumed that such rulings were erroneous, such errors were harmless. Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1983); Alexander v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., 387 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Harrison v. American Fire & Cas. Co., 226 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
FINANCIAL RULINGS: EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND ALIMONY
Wife’s Points
4. The trial court erred in denying the Wife an equitable distribution of the assets accumulated during the marriage.
5. The trial court erred and abused its discretion in awarding to the Wife rehabilitative alimony in the amount of but $2,000.00 per month for a two-year period of time.
We affirm upon the authority of .Canakaris, supra; Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1983); Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Tronconi v. Tronconi, 425 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); and Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1979).
ORDER DETERMINING PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF MINOR CHILDREN
Wife’s Point
6. The trial court erred and abused its discretion in ordering that the primary physical residence of the parties’ minor children be with the Husband.
We affirm. The compelling findings and decision of the trial court were supported by abundant competent evidence. In such case, we are not authorized to substitute our judgment. Wales v. Wales, 422 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Hunt v. Hunt, 394 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Murphy v. Murphy, 370 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
The final judgment is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED. HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., and NORRIS, WILLIAM A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beth Alyson Esdale (Cohen) v. Esdale, 487 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ysical custody to the father must not have been an easy decision for this much respected trial judge to make. Were we to reverse him, we would be making an impermissible substitution of our judgment for that of the trial court. Pulitzer v. Pulitzer, 449 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), pet. for rev. denied, 458 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1984). We applaud the trial court’s decision to retain the services of a guardian ad litem to report to the court for a period of six months after the date of the final judgment now app…
-
Richards v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 530 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…te order it entered based on the evidence before it, excluding the testimony which was perpetuated, and therefore we find no error in the order under review. At best, under the entire circumstances, the error would be harmless. Pulitzer v. Pulitzer, 449 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Greenfield v. Bland, 99 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); Section 59.041 Florida Statutes (1987). Therefore, the order of termination under review, be and the same is hereby affirmed. AFFIRMED.…
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1983)
- Doyle Edward Conner v. Conner, 439 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1983)
- Williamson v. Veva C. Williamson, 367 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1979)
- Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Tronconi v. Tronconi, 425 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 370 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Conchita Palmar v. Emilio Palmar, 402 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Hartley v. Hartley, 399 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Schwartz v. Schwartz, 431 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)