THOMAS R. UGARTE, APPELLANT,
v.
SHARON UGARTE, MARWIN S. CASSEL, RECEIVER, AND HOWARD A. MESH, C.P.A., APPELLEES
THOMAS R. UGARTE, APPELLANT,
SHARON UGARTE, MARWIN S. CASSEL, RECEIVER, AND HOWARD A. MESH, C.P.A., APPELLEES
548 So. 2d 284
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1989)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s order directing the husband to “liquidate from his IRA account, and/or his Pension Fund, or any other source available to [husband] sufficient funds to pay the [accountant] ... and the Receiver.” Furthermore, appellees conceded at oral argument that the order vests sole discretion in the husband to decide the source of the funds with which to pay the appellees’ fees.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Castillo v. State, 590 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ch offense ... is insufficient to convict either person of a conspiracy to commit the subject offense. Ramirez v. State, 371 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1980); accord Garcia v. State, 548 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Velunza v. State, 504 So. 2d 780, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Ashenoff v. State, 391 So. 2d 289, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see § 777.04(3), Fla. Stat. (1989). The evidence in the present case shows that the defendant was a passen…
-
Kanisky Evans v. State, 985 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…2d 136, 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (citation omitted). See Mickenberg v. State, 640 So. 2d 1210, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Quinonez v. State, 634 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); McCants v. State, 587 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Garcia v. State, 548 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); LaPolla v. State, 504 So. 2d 1353, 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Ashenoff v. State, 391 So. 2d 289, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). “Mere presence at the scene is insufficient to establish a conspiracy.” Mickenberg, 640 So. 2d at 1211.…
-
State v. Harklerode, 567 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ly cognizable motion, but must also support the defense with sworn evidence. See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (disclosure is warranted when defendant asserts a legally recognized defense and supports the defense with sworn proof); Garcia v. State, 548 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (in camera review required when defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit); State v. Zamora, supra (disclosure only ordered where defendant asserts a legally recognizable defense, supported by sworn proof); Beasley v. State, 354…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence