ARCH L. PROPPS, APPELLANT,
v.
MERCEDES B. PROPPS, 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 court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or in its distribution of marital assets and alimony, affirming the final judgment.
[1] An objection to evidence is abandoned and waived for appellate review if the trial court reserves ruling on the objection and the objecting party thereafter fails to seek…
[2] A security placed in a joint account by a party during a marriage constitutes marital property subject to equitable distribution.
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 intelligenceThe former husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, raising three points of error regarding evidence admission and property/alimo…
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 Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the former husband Arch L. Propps from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which three points on appeal are raised. We find no merit in any of these points and affirm.
First, we conclude that the trial court did not, as urged, commit reversible error in admitting in evidence the testimony of all the witnesses and exhibits offered at trial by the former wife Mercedes B. Propps despite the husband’s initial objection based on the wife’s failure to comply with the trial court’s pretrial order concerning the disclosure of witnesses and exhibits to be used at trial. This is so because the point has not been properly preserved for appellate review. Although the former husband objected to the complained-of evidence when introduced, the trial court reserved ruling thereon; thereafter, the former husband never sought a ruling on his objection and the matter was never again discussed at trial. This being so, it is plain that the former husband, in effect, abandoned his objection to the subject evidence and has waived the point for appellate review. Schreidell v. State, 500 So. 2d 228, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987); Tieso v. Metropolitan Dade County, 426 So. 2d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 440 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1983); Le Retilley v. Harris, 354 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1216 (Fla.1978).
Second, we conclude that the trial court did not commit reversible error in awarding one half of the GNMA security investment to the former wife as this security was placed in a joint account by the former husband and thus constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution. Third, we conclude that no abuse of discretion is shown in the trial court’s award of periodic alimony, lump sum alimony, and distribution of marital assets. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976).
The final judgment of dissolution of marriage is therefore, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 552 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…rsonal injury settlement lost its identity as separate property when it was commingled with marital property consisting of $10,000 in cash and used to first purchase a certificate of deposit and later to purchase a sailing vessel); Propps v. Propps, 547 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (security investment placed in joint account by former husband constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution); Terreros v. Terreros, 531 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (funds derived from the sale of the wif…
-
Tebrugge v. Eastman, 703 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…, 1996 effective date and failed to argue below that the amendment agreement should not be deemed effective as of December 1, 1996. Thus, we conclude that the appellant’s first issue has not been preserved for appellate review. See Propps v. Propps, 547 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). With respect to the attorney’s fees issue, the record on appeal fails to include a copy of the motion for attorney’s fees or any transcript of the hearing at which the financial resources of the parties and the other facts and…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- LeRETILLEY v. Harris, 354 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Schreidell v. Rabbi Bernard P. Shoter, 500 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Tieso v. Metro. Dade Cnty. & William Kearse, 426 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)