DOMER
v.
MARTIN
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.
Carl Randall Domer appealed a trial court's final order on equitable distribution in a family law matter. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, finding that Domer failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion and raised no facial deficiency in the order.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion and there is no facial deficiency in the final order on equitable distribution.
[1] An appellant challenging an equitable distribution order on appeal must demonstrate abuse of discretion or facial deficiency in the order to obtain reversal.
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“Because the appellant fails to demonstrate an abuse of the trial court's discretion and raises no facial deficiency in the final order on equitable distribution, the final order is affirmed.”
This establishes the court's holding and the legal standard applied: the appellant must demonstrate abuse of discretion or facial deficiency to overturn an equitable distribution order.
The case involved a final order on equitable distribution between Domer and Tanya M Martin. The specific factual details are not elaborated in this pe…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
March 12, 2025 PER CURIAM.
Because the appellant fails to demonstrate an abuse of the trial court’s discretion and raises no facial deficiency in the final order on equitable distribution, the final order is affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979); Alzirghani v. Algabah, 328 So. 3d 398, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021).
BILBREY, M.K. THOMAS, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Carl Randall Domer, pro se, Appellant. Tanya M Martin, pro se, Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Domer v. Martin, 328 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)…e of the trial court’s discretion and raises no facial deficiency in the final order on equitable distribution, the final order is affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979); Alzirghani v. Algabah, 328 So. 3d 398, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). BILBREY, M.K. THOMAS, and LONG, JJ., concur. 2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. ____________________________…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Domer v. Martin, 328 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)