VINCENT C. VOLPE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGIE VOLPE, 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 the trial court's final decree of divorce, finding sufficient evidence to support property awards and no abuse of discretion in ordering payment of attorney's fees and costs.
The husband appealed a final divorce decree, challenging the award of a condominium to the wife and the requirement for him to pay attorney's fees and…
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
The appellant husband, Vincent C. Volpe, appeals from a final decree of divorce for the wife, Margie Volpe.
He does not challenge the award of the divorce to the wife but argues that there was insufficient, competent, substantial evidence to support certain portions of the final decree; that the chancellor abused his discretion in making certain property awards and in requiring him to pay attorney’s fees and costs to the wife.
There was conflicting evidence in the record concerning certain monies which the parties paid to purchase a condominium apartment which was awarded to the wife *535in the divorce decree. The court found that the wife had a special equity in this condominium apartment as she had alleged in her pleadings. It granted her no alimony but required the husband to convey all right, title and interest in the condominium to the wife. We find competent, substantial evidence to support this finding and no reversible error in this ruling. See Hoke v. Hoke, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So.2d 118; and Latta v. Latta, Fla.App. 1960, 121 So.2d 42.
The record does not reflect that the chancellor abused his discretion in requiring the husband to pay $300 to the attorney for the wife and $80 in court costs. See Arrington v. Arrington, Fla.App. 1963, 150 So.2d 473; and Turney v. Turney, Fla.App.1963, 149 So.2d 83.
The final judgment of divorce is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wollman v. Wollman, 235 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…therein. See Parsons v. Parsons, 154 Fla. 299, 17 So. 2d 223 (1944); Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So. 2d 727 (1941); Heath v. Heath, 103 Fla. 1071, 138 So. 796 (1932); Green v. Green, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 112; Volpe v. Volpe, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 534; Perine v. Perine, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 71; Wood v. Wood, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 879; and 10 Fla.Jur. Divorce, Etc., § 208. Appellant’s argument for reversal on this point is insufficient. Appellant husband argues that error was made in the a…
-
Ezell v. Richetta Ezell, 320 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of Volpe v. Volpe, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 534; Green v. Green, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 112; Wollman v. Wollman, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 315; Walton v. Walton, Fla.App.1974, 290 So. 2d 110, 112.…
Authorities Cited
- Latta v. Parker A. Latta, 121 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Wendall P. Arrington v. Arrington, 150 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Turney v. Turney, 149 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Hoke v. Hoke, 202 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)