CHA MA RAH BELANGER
v.
KENNETH R. BELANGER
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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's final judgment, including its denial of a continuance request after appellant's attorney withdrew, and its equitable distribution of property and alimony award. The appellant claimed the trial court erred in refusing to continue the case despite her loss of counsel, but the court found no abuse of discretion.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance request or in the equitable distribution of property and alimony award. Trial courts have discretion to refuse continuances even when an attorney withdraws, particularly where the party stipulated to withdrawal, the opposing party is pro se, and there is no discovery violation.
[1] A trial court exercises proper discretion in denying a continuance request following an attorney's withdrawal where the party stipulated to the withdrawal without securin…
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unlock all legal intelligence“The trial court has discretion to refuse a continuance even where a party's attorney has withdrawn.”
Court established the applicable standard for reviewing continuance denials in family law cases.
Michael Gulisano appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Indian River Count…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312020DR000584.
Michael Gulisano of Gulisano Law, PLLC, Coral Springs, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. PER CURIAM. We affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Appellant claims that the court erred in denying a request for continuance. The trial court has discretion to refuse a continuance even where a party’s attorney has withdrawn. Cargile-Schrage v. Schrage, 908 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Here, appellant stipulated to the withdrawal of her attorney shortly before trial, even though she had not secured a continuance, the trial court had a strict continuance policy, and the case had been pending for over eight months. In addition, appellee was pro se, and thus had no advantage over appellant. On this record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion.
We also find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination of equitable distribution of the property and the award of alimony. During the trial, the court went over all the parties’ assets, income, and expenses. It allowed both sides to question the other. In the final judgment, all known assets were valued. Although appellant alleged that appellee was hiding assets, she offered no proof other than speculation. And contrary to her representation on appeal, there were no outstanding discovery requests in the record.1 The trial court made equitable distribution of the property and an award of alimony. We affirm both.
Affirmed. WARNER, GROSS and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.