JOSEPH HUDSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
RITA O. HUDSON, APPELLEE
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 appellate court affirmed a divorce decree, upholding the trial court's award of a special equity in the marital home to the wife and the alimony and attorney's fees awarded to her. The court found substantial evidence supported these decisions and no abuse of discretion.
No, the trial court did not err. There was substantial competent evidence to support the award of a special equity, and no abuse of discretion was shown regarding the alimony and attorney's fees.
“The record contains substantial competent evidence to sustain the trial court's finding of a special equity in favor of the wife”
Establishes the basis for upholding the special equity award.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband appealed a final divorce decree, challenging the wife's award of a special equity in the marital home and the amounts awarded for alimony …
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 Special Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant husband appeals from a final decree of divorce, complaining of an award to the wife of a special equity in the marital domicile of the parties and of the amount awarded the wife for alimony and attorney’s fees. The record contains substantial competent evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding of a special equity in favor of the wife, Sharpe v. Sharpe, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 822. Likewise, there is a substantial evidentiary basis for the award of alimony and attorney’s fees to the wife and there being no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in regard to these items, they will not be disturbed on appeal. Bencomo v. Bencomo, Fla.App. *6971967, 195 So.2d 874; Farr v. Farr, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 890.
Affirmed.
CROSS, C. J., and OWEN, J., and Mac-MILLAN, HUGH, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bencomo v. Will C. Bencomo, 195 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Gaynell v. Sharpe, 202 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Farr v. Farr, 164 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)