SERGIO R. FERNANDEZ
v.
MIRIAM FERNANDEZ
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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in its alimony and equitable distribution determinations, as competent substantial evidence supported the rulings.
[1] Alimony and equitable distribution determinations are reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion, and such determinations will be affirmed if supported by competent subst…
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 intelligenceSergio R. Fernandez appealed a circuit court decision in a family law matter involving alimony and equitable distribution determinations made by the t…
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 Alimony Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to the trial court’s alimony determinations); Viscito v. Viscito, 214 So. 3d 736, 737-39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (observing that an appellate court generally reviews alimony and equitable distribution determinations for an abuse of discretion, and concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion given the presence of competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's discretionary rulings). See also Broadfoot v. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (noting: “As a general rule, we decline to consider claims which were not presented in the first instance in the trial court.”); Mulligan v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 127 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (noting appellant’s argument on appeal was waived by having failed to present or preserve the issue at the hearing below or in a motion for rehearing).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Broadfoot v. Rocio E. Broadfoot, 791 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Viscito v. Viscito, 214 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Mulligan v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 127 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)