ARMANDO SOLIS, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• McCANTS v. McCANTS, 984 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
  …ties’ marital assets and liabilities. The equitable distribution of the parties’ assets and liabilities is within the trial court’s broad discretion, and this court’s standard of review is for an abuse of that discretion. See Hollister v. Hollister, 965 So. 2d 341, 343-44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Sharon v. Sharon, 862 So. 2d 789, 791-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The home is the parties’ only significant asset, and we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award it as lump-sum alimony. Howeve…
• Hornyak v. Annabelle G. Hornyak, 48 So. 3d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
  …. See Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also § 61.08(2)(g), Fla. Stat. (instructing that in determining alimony, the court should consider “[a]ll sources of income available to either party”); cf. Hollister v. Hollister, 965 So. 2d 341, 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not including the husband’s bonus in determining his income because the husband’s testimony supported the conclusion that the bonus was not regular and continuing)…
• Concetta Rafanello v. Bode, 21 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
  …to a share of the home’s equity because $12,000 in marital funds was used to pay the mortgage on the home during the marriage. A trial court’s equitable distribution of marital assets is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hollister v. Hollister, 965 So. 2d 341, 343-44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “The trial court’s findings are entitled to the presumption of correctness accorded to trial court judgments where the credibility of witnesses is a factor.” Seijas v. Seijas, 557 So. 2d 102, 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). As t…