MARLENE MURRAH ROUCO, APPELLANT, APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT,
v.
ARMANDO M. ROUCO, APPELLEE, APPELLANT, CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's dissolution of marriage judgment and its discretionary awards of alimony, child support, business valuation, and attorney's fees, finding substantial competent evidence supported the factual determinations.
The trial court's dissolution judgment, including provisions for alimony, child support, business valuation with a ten-year payout, and attorney's fees, was within the court's discretion and supported by substantial competent evidence.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage, the trial court has discretion to structure the division of a closely held business interest as a ten-year payout with interest, provided th…
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 intelligenceMarlene Murrah Rouco and Armando M. Rouco were parties to a dissolution of marriage involving a closely held company owned jointly by the parties. The…
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 Property Division cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marlene Murrah Rouco, the former wife, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former wife and Armando M. Rouco, the former husband, both appeal the trial court order granting in part and denying in part attorney’s fees and costs to the wife. We affirm.
The wife contends that the trial court made inadequate provisions for alimony and child support; that the court assigned an inadequate value to the closely held company owned by the parties; and that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting a ten-year payout, with interest, of the wife's fifty percent interest in the business.
After carefully considering the parties’ respective contentions on appeal, we conclude that there is substantial competent evidence underlying the trial court’s factual determinations and that the trial court acted within the bounds of discretion permitted by Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). The award of attorney’s fees to the wife was likewise consistent with the discretion permitted by Cana-karis and such cases as Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828, 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). By the same token, the trial court had the discretion to adjust the amount of fees and costs to be awarded, and we are not persuaded that the court abused its discretion in that regard. The orders under review are therefore affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Kuse v. Kuse, 533 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Ardith Nisbeth v. Nisbeth, 568 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)