JOHN R. BARRETT, MAURICE M. DILIBERTO, AND PHILLIPS, NIZER, BENJAMIN, KRIM & BALLON, APPELLANTS,
v.
ADELE MANUS ET AL., APPELLEES
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 trial court's order dismissing a divorce action against a husband, while retaining jurisdiction over a corporate defendant to potentially satisfy attorney's fees for the wife's attorneys. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its order.
“The matter of the sufficiency and availability of the assets for the stated purpose is a matter to be determined in the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Establishes the standard of review for the trial court's decision regarding assets for attorney's fees.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAttorneys for the wife in a divorce action appealed an order that dismissed the action against the husband but reserved jurisdiction over a corporate …
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
The attorneys, John R. Barrett et al., for Adele Manus, the plaintiff, appeal an order dismissing the action for divorce against Allen S. Manus in which a number of corporations were made parties. The order appealed from reserved jurisdiction of one of the corporate defendants which allegedly holds property of the husband. The stated purpose of retaining jurisdiction in this *308instance is to provide an asset out of which fees, if any, found to be due the attorneys for the wife could be paid.
The matter of the sufficiency and availability of the assets for the stated purpose is a matter to be determined in the sound discretion of the trial court. A careful review of the appeal papers, briefs and arguments of the counsel for the parties reveals no abuse of such discretion.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., concur.