EDWARD F. NEWBERGER, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
JEAN H. NEWBERGER, 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 judgment, finding no reversible error in its decisions regarding permanent alimony and property division. The court also cautioned counsel about the responsibility to present complete legal arguments.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony, and the facts and circumstances supported this decision over rehabilitative alimony. The record contained appropriate pleadings for the partition of property.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by awarding permanent alimony when the facts and circumstances do not support the application of the rehabilitative alimony co…
[2] A trial court's division of property held by parties as tenants by the entirety is affirmed when the record contains appropriate pleadings for partition.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In particular, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony rather than rehabilitative alimony.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the alimony award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant appealed a trial court's judgment concerning permanent alimony and the division of property held as tenants by the entirety. The appelle…
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 Duty Of Candor To The Tribunal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon examination of the record and after due consideration of the briefs and oral argument we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. In particular, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony rather than rehabilitative alimony. Herbert v. Herbert, Fla.App.1974, 304 So. 2d 465. Moreover, the facts and circumstances of this case do not lend themselves to an application of the rehabilitative alimony concept. See Reback v. Reback, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 541. Furthermore, with particular respect to the division of property held by the parties as tenants by the entirety we are satisfied that the record contains appropriate pleadings for partition. Rankin v. Rankin, Fla.App.1972, 258 So. 2d 489; Niemann v. Niemann, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 415; compare with Lubarr v. Lubarr, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 123. Having considered and found the other points to be without merit the judgment appealed from is affirmed.1
Affirmed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., and RED-DICK, THOMAS J., Jr., Associate Judge, concur. . Appellee’s brief contains extensive quotations from this court’s decision in Niemann, supra, which relates directly to an issue involved in this appeal. Appellee’s brief also quotes extensively from the decisions of our sister courts in Butcher v. Butcher, Fla.App. 1970, 239 So. 2d 855, and Walton v. Walton, Fla.App.1974, 290 So. 2d 110, which are at variance with Niemwnn. We express some concern over the fact that this variance was not acknowledged by the appellee; the quotations from Niemann are incomplete in that there is omitted therefrom the specific determination which this court made in Nie- mann rejecting the decisions in Walton and Butcher. While we are confident that this omission was inadvertent we would call attention to the responsibiity of counsel to fully inform the court on the applicable law whether favorable or adverse to the position of his client in order that the court is better able to make a fair and accurate determination of the matter before it. E’O 7-23, Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); In re Marriage of Stevens, 327 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Sommese v. Sommese, 324 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Nevins v. Nevins, 305 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975), cert. den. 327 So. 2d 33; Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Brook v. Brook, 289 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974), cert. den. 300 So. 2d 895; Ruhnau v. Ruhnau, 299 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Keller v. Keller, 308 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1974); Schultz v. Schultz, 290 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2nd DCA 19…
-
Addison v. Honorable Cecil Brown, 413 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…rt than the outcome of this petition, was the part played by Lubin, counsel for petitioners. While an attorney always carries a duty and obligation of candor with the court, Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Newberger v. Newberger, 311 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), this is especially important when the relief requested is urgently sought and the time insufficient to allow the opposition to present a response. What is a minor factual omission when there is time for a response becomes a majo…
-
Schwartz v. Schwartz, 336 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…orized to make a division of property even if held by the entireties if such a division is sought by one of the parties and tried without objection. But see Niemann v. Niemann, Fla.App.1974, 294 So. 2d 415, and Newberger v. Newberger, Fla.App. 1975, 311 So. 2d 176. An additional point is presented urging that the court erred in failing to provide for the support of a 17 year old son who is being maintained in school by the husband. We think that no error is shown inasmuch as the wife tacitly agreed to the pr…
Authorities Cited
- Reback v. Reback, 296 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Rankin v. Rankin, 258 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Niemann v. Niemann, 294 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Norwood K. Walton v. Walton, 290 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Herbert v. Herbert, 304 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Lubarr v. Lubarr, 199 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Greer v. Thompkins, 239 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Butcher v. Butcher, 239 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)