MICHAEL J. NEWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY K. NEWELL, 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.
Husband's appeal of alimony and attorney's fees awards in a marriage dissolution was affirmed because the trial court's awards fell within its broad discretion and the husband waived his objection to the attorney's fees award by failing to object at trial.
Trial court awards of lump sum alimony, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney's fees to the wife in a marriage dissolution fall within the trial court's broad discretion and are affirmed.
[1] A party waives appellate review of an issue by failing to object at trial when the trial court announces its intention to decide the matter on a limited record, and the i…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael J. Newell and Mary K. Newell were parties to a marriage dissolution proceeding in which the trial court awarded the wife lump sum alimony, reh…
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 Alimony Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband Michael J. Newell appeals a final judgment of marriage dissolution and attacks the propriety of the trial court awards of lump sum and rehabilitative alimony to the wife Mary K. Newell; the wife cross appeals the same awards as being inadequate. We reject all of these contentions and affirm these awards on the basis that the awards fall within the broad discretion of the trial court to make in view of the evidence contained in this record. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
The husband also attacks the propriety of the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to the wife. He argues that the award was improper because of a certain failure to adduce expert testimony and testimony from the attorney himself at the hearing below. We cannot agree. The trial court announced that it intended to decide the issue based on the testimony of the wife alone and the husband made no objection thereto — either then or later in a petition for rehearing. The husband has, therefore, waived this point for review as it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Hollis, 58 Fla. 268, 50 So. 985 (1909) (syllabus by ct., no. 2); Menendez v. Menendez, 435 So. 2d 287, 289 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. for review denied, 441 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1983); Williamson v. Williamson, 335 So. 2d 346, 347-48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The balance of the husband’s argument against the attorney’s fee award has no merit. Pfohl v. Pfohl, supra.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rokicki v. Ewa Rokicki, 660 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…estified as to their fee arrangement, the amount awarded was unsupported by substantial competent evidence. However, the husband made no objection to the lack of such testimony below, so he is precluded from asserting it on appeal. Newell v. Newell, 464 So. 2d 222, 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we reverse the award of temporary alimony and affirm the award of temporary attorney’s fees.…
-
Evans v. Deidre Murphy, 159 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Murphy v. Murphy, 96 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Rokicki v. Rolcicki, 660 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); [*200] Newell v. Newell, 464 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
-
Owsley v. Owsley, 510 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…in awarding the wife three years of rehabilitative alimony of $200 a week. Based on this record, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Mr. Owsley could afford the award, and that Mrs. Owsley was in need of same. See Newell v. Newell, 464 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); § 61.08, Fla.Stat. (1985). The final judgment under review is, therefore, in all respects Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hollis, 58 Fla. 268 (Fla. 1909)
- Menendez v. Menendez, 435 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Carner Bank OF Miami Beach v. R. G. Wolff & Co., Inc., 335 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)