LEON TALAN, APPELLANT,
v.
AWILDA E. TALAN, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding of the husband's net worth in excess of $150,000 and the resulting awards of lump sum alimony and attorney's fees in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, rejecting the husband's challenge to the evidence interpretation.
A trial court's finding of a husband's net worth in excess of $150,000, based on his own prior financial statements and other evidence, is amply supported in the record and within the trial court's discretion in awarding alimony and attorney's fees.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, a trial court's finding of a party's net worth is amply supported when based on that party's own prior financial statements and c…
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 intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the husband had previously signed financial statements declaring his net worth between $150,000 and $200,000.…
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 Appellate Review Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have consolidated two appeals by a former husband, one from the final judgment and the other from an order allowing an attorney’s fee to the former wife, in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The main thrust of both appeals is that the trial judge misconstrued an item of evidence so that he found an erroneous net worth of the appellant and, thereby allowed excessive amounts as lump sum alimony and as attorney’s fees. The finding as to net worth questioned here is as follows :
“5. The Husband has previously signed financial statements declaring his net worth to be between $150,000.00 and $200,000, and the Court finds from these statements and the other evidence presented, that the Respondent-Husband has a net worth in excess of $150,000.-00.”
Our review of the record in the light of the arguments presented convinces us that this finding is amply supported in the record and that it cannot be said that it rests upon an erroneous interpretation of one item of evidence. The awards made and the form in which they were made are well within the discretion allowed to a trial judge in such cases. See Wolper v. Wolper, Fla.App. 1969, 225 So. 2d 579.
We have considered the other points presented in the briefs and find that none of them presented reversible error. Affirmed.