MARCIA GREENSTEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STUART A. GREENSTEIN, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a dissolution judgment but modified it to retain jurisdiction for future alimony considerations. The court also strongly disapproved of the husband's counsel's tactic of raising frivolous cross-appeal issues solely to manipulate the court's decision.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its dissolution judgment. However, the court should have retained jurisdiction to allow for a potential alimony award in the future.
[1] A trial court's dissolution judgment will be affirmed if neither party demonstrates an abuse of discretion in its terms.
[2] A trial court should retain jurisdiction to permit an alimony award if it should be required in the future.
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“It is not enough merely to Canakaris-ize this case by holding, although it is plainly true, that neither the wife’s claim that the trial court granted too little, nor the husband’s predictable counter-attack that the award was too high,1 has demonstrated an [*155] abuse of discretion in the terms of the dissolution judgment under review.”
Establishes that the financial terms of the dissolution judgment were not an abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife appealed a dissolution judgment, claiming the alimony award was too low, while the husband cross-appealed, claiming it was too high. The husb…
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
It is not enough merely to Canakaris-ize this case by holding, although it is plainly true, that neither the wife’s claim that the trial court granted too little, nor the husband’s predictable counter-attack that the award was too high,1 has demonstrated an abuse of discretion in the terms of the dissolution judgment under review. We deem it appropriate instead affirmatively to commend and approve the actions of the trial judge who patiently heard and considered the Greensteins’ personal and complex financial situation and fashioned an imaginative and wise resolution of the problems presented which was eminently fair to both parties. We do hold that the lower court should have retained jurisdiction over the cause to permit an alimony award if it should be required in the future. Greene v. Greene, 256 So. 2d 258, 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 263 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1972). With that small modification, the judgment below, as well as the subsequent orders allowing the wife attorney’s fees and interest, are enthusiastically
Affirmed.
. At oral argument, the husband’s counsel conceded, as was obvious in any event, that his cross-appellate challenges to the amount of the award were raised only as a stratagem to induce the court to reject the wife's appeal by giving it the opportunity to rule against both parties and thus "split the difference.” While this tactic is unfortunately all-too-commonplace, we thoroughly disapprove of it. This court, like all others, is entitled to expect that it will be presented only with positions sincerely urged on their merits; it should not be manipulated in this (or any other) fashion. We point out, moreover, that the attempt to influence the result through the use of an inappropriate means like this (or any other) can have nothing but a counter-productive effect upon the court it is meant -to persuade. Thus, we emphasize that we have rejected the wife’s contentions despite — and not in any way because of — the husband’s.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Greene v. Greene, 256 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- City OF Orlando v. Tempest Storm, 263 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972)
- Greene v. Greene, 263 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972)