JILL R. ZALIS, APPELLANT,
v.
BRIAN A. ZALIS, 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.
Wife appealed a final judgment of marriage dissolution, challenging the trial court's distribution of marital assets, alimony and child support awards, and denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in any of the trial court's rulings.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in any of these rulings. There was substantial, competent evidence supporting the trial court's decisions on property distribution, support issues, parental responsibility, and alimony arrangements, and no reversible error was presented.
[1] A trial court's discretion in matters of asset distribution, alimony, and child support will be affirmed on appeal if a reasonable person could have reached the same resu…
[2] Appellate courts will not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the trial court when substantial, competent evidence supports the trial court's ruling…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“there is substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the trial court's rulings here, and we are not privileged to reweigh the evidence on appeal, as the wife invites us to do, and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.”
Establishes the standard of review and rejects wife's attempt to have the appellate court reconsider the factual basis for the trial court's decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJill R. Zalis and Brian A. Zalis were parties to a marriage dissolution proceeding. The trial court entered a final judgment addressing the distributi…
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 Shared Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the wife Jill R. Zalis from a final judgment of marriage dissolution in which she raises various points on appeal. We find no merit in these points and affirm.
The main thrust of the wife’s appeal here is that she was “short-changed” by the final judgment’s (a) distribution of assets between the parties, (b) alimony and child support awards, and (c) denial of her request for attorney’s fees and costs. Our review of the record, however, reveals no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in its rulings on the above property and support issues as, plainly, a reasonable person could have reached these results. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
Stated differently, there is substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s rulings here, and we are not privileged to reweigh the evidence on appeal, as the wife invites us to do, and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976).
As for the remaining complaints of the wife herein, we conclude that no reversible error is presented. The brief communication which the trial judge had with the husband after one of the hearings below may have been ill-advised, but it in no way prejudiced the wife, as, indeed, the judge’s comments were less than sympathetic to the husband and were not remotely critical of the wife. See Neubert v. Harter, 394 So. 2d 242, 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers’ Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Koltunovsky, 184 So. 2d 450, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Crews v. Warren, 157 So. 2d 553, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
There was no need for the trial court in this case to make specific findings on the valuation of each of the marital assets, and Carroll v. Carroll, 471 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 482 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1985), imposed no such requirement. See Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla.1984); Jacquin-Florida Distilling Co. v. Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Architects-Engineers-Planners, Inc., 319 So. 2d 604, 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Dworkis v. Dworkis, 111 So. 2d 70, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 115 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1959).
Finally, there was no abuse of discretion shown in permitting shared parental responsibility of the parties’ minor child, in not reserving jurisdiction to award further alimony in the future, or in awarding lump sum alimony payable anytime within three years of the final judgment. See Gerscovich v. Gerscovich, 406 So. 2d 1150, 1151-52 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981); Winner v. Winner, 370 So. 2d 845, 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Lee v. Lee, 309 So. 2d 26, 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
For the above reasons, the final judgment under review is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polizzi v. Polizzi, 600 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ourt undertakes to award equitable distribution.” Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So. 2d 602, 604 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). Other courts have declined to adopt a “hard and fast” rule on this matter. Danoff v. Danoff, 501 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.4th DCA 1987); Zalis v. Zalis, 498 So. 2d 505 (Fla.3d DCA 1986). Although I personally agree with Haas, this court has chosen not to address that issue.13 However, the wife is correct in asserting that her $15,000 marital property distribution can be supported by the value of other marital pro…
-
Adkins v. Adkins, 650 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ple may differ as to the propriety of the trial court’s discretionary rulings, the appellate court may not disturb such rulings. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202-03 (Fla.1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Zalis v. Zalis, 498 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). I In the instant case, the parties married in 1978; it was the second marriage for both parties. There were no children bom of the marriage and the husband filed for dissolution of the marriage in 1987. The trial court made the…
-
Kelly v. Kelly, 557 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…d in an equitable distribution in Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) and Clemson v. Clemson, 546 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), whereas the Third and Fourth Districts have declined as yet to adopt a hard and fast rule. Zalis v. Zalis, 498 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Danoff v. Danoff, 501 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Ranelle M. LEE v. LEE, 309 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Vandergriff v. Wallyce V. Vandergriff, 456 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1984)
- Dworkis v. Dworkis, 111 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Crews v. Warren, 157 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Carroll v. Carroll, 471 So. 2d 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Winner v. Winner, 370 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Gerscovich v. Eugenio Alberto Gerscovich, 406 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)