MATTHEW JAY OUSLANDER
v.
OLENA OUSLANDER
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 awarding shared parental responsibility with equal unsupervised timesharing, assigning marital investment losses equally to both parties, and requiring an equalizing payment rather than directing payment of credit card debt from marital home proceeds.
[1] Where a non-managing spouse would have shared in the profits from investment activities, that spouse must share equally in any losses from those investments, regardless o…
[2] A trial court in a dissolution action may order an equalizing payment for equitable distribution but cannot adjudicate a debt or order payment of a spouse's debt from mar…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 former husband, who would have shared in any profits, must share equally in the losses, notwithstanding that the former wife's investment conduct may well have been imprudent.”
Court's reasoning on allocation of marital investment losses, citing Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom
Matthew Jay Ouslander appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage from the Circuit Court for St. Lucie County. The disputed issues involved c…
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 Shared Parental Responsibility cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Anastasia M. Norman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2022-DR- 001230.
Jonathan Mann and Robin Bresky of Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, Boca Raton, for appellant.
James P. Ferraro and Russell J. Ferraro, III of Ferraro Law Group, PL, Stuart, for appellee. PER CURIAM. We affirm the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. As to the court’s award of shared parental responsibility and equal, unsupervised timesharing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980). The issue with respect to time-sharing came down to a credibility determination between the former husband and former wife, which was within the trial court’s province. See V.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 322 So. 3d 1153, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“The appellate court has no authority to reweigh testimony and find it credible.”). As to the claim that the court erred by failing to assign marital debt to the former wife for her investment activity losses, we also conclude that the former husband has shown no abuse of discretion. See Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom, 851 So. 2d 190, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“The former husband, who would have shared in any profits, must share equally in the losses, notwithstanding that the former wife's investment conduct may well have been imprudent.”). Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion by requiring the former husband to make an equalizing payment for equitable distribution, instead of ordering the
2
former wife’s credit card debt to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the marital home. See Hua v. Tsung, 222 So. 3d 584, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Although a trial court in a dissolution judgment certainly can identify marital assets and liabilities, and allocate them to the parties pursuant to section 61.075(3), Florida Statutes (2014), it cannot adjudicate a debt.”). Affirmed. WARNER, GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Susanna Alan v. West (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- HUA v. Dennis H.L. Tsung, 222 So. 3d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom, 851 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)