EDYTHE W. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM M. SMITH, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's final judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's jurisdictional findings, property division, spousal support determinations, or application of no-fault dissolution law. The court also addressed procedural deficiencies in the appellate record preparation.
The trial court properly exercised jurisdiction based on sufficient evidence of residency; child support after age 18 is not required under Florida law; the property division was supported by the evidence; no abuse of discretion occurred in denying travel expenses and attorney's fees; and the denial of alimony did not misconstrue the no-fault dissolution statute.
[1] Appellate courts may strike records and briefs not prepared in accordance with applicable rules of appellate procedure.
[2] A trial court has jurisdiction over a dissolution of marriage case if the residency requirement for military personnel is met.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Our examination of the record reveals that there was ample evidence to sustain the finding of the trial judge that the residency requirement had been met.”
Establishes that the trial court's jurisdictional finding regarding residency was supported by the evidence in the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam and Edythe Smith were married parties involved in a dissolution of marriage action. Edythe Smith was a military member. The trial court found …
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 Residency Requirements For Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We are here again faced with a record on appeal not prepared in accordance with the applicable rules of appellate procedure. The same criticism (intended to be constructive) which we noted in our opinion in Okaloosa Island Leaseholders Association, Inc. v. Okaloosa Island Authority, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 308 So. 2d 120, is also applicable here except that sub judice neither volume of the record on appeal is numbered at all. True to form, however, there is nothing chronological about the index : Item 1, page 1 is the directions to the clerk but Item 23, pages 78 and 79 is the petition for dissolution of marriage. The final judgment is sandwiched in between as Item 11, pages 21 and 23. It is preceded as Item 10 pages 18 through 20 by the petition for rehearing and petition to amend judgment.
As a caveat we here suggest that the Court would be entirely within the bounds of its inherent jurisdiction were we to sua sponte strike the record on appeal and briefs which are not prepared in accordance with the clear and unequivocal mandates of the Florida Appellate Rules.
Turning now to the points raised by appellant, the first of which urges that the trial court was without jurisdiction of this dissolution of marriage case because the petitioner, a member of the military, had not resided in the State of Florida for sufficient time to establish residency in accordance with the provisions of F.S. § 61.-021. Our examination of the record reveals that there was ample evidence to sustain the finding of the trial judge that the residency requirement had been met.
Appellant then urges that the trial court erred in failing to provide support for the child of the parties after attaining 18 years of age. That contention is refuted by this Court’s decision in White v. White, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 296 So. 2d 619.
Point three in appellant’s briefs relates to an alleged failure on the part of the trial judge to properly divide certain jointly owned property, including bank accounts. Our examination of the record does not reveal that the claims of the appellant in this regard are sufficiently supported by the evidence to overcome the presumption of correctness which we are required to give to the actions of the trial judge.
Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to fully consider the financial obligations and debts of the wife in denying her prayer for travel expenses and attorney’s fees. We do not find the record to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in that regard.
Finally, appellant asserts that the trial judge misconstrued the Florida “no-fault” dissolution of marriage law in denying alimony to appellant. There is nothing in the record before us to demonstrate applicability of our decisions in Brown v. Brown, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 300 So. 2d 719 and Ruhnau v. Ruhnau, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 299 So. 2d 61.
Appellant’s petition for attorney’s fees incident to this appeal is denied.
The appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the final judgment appealed is
Affirmed.
BOYER, Acting C. J, and McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barrs v. Barrs, 505 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…dissents with written opinion. . § 120.59(2), Fla.Stat. (1985). . § 440.25(3)(c), Fla.Stat. (1985); Vargas v. Americana of Bal Harbor, 345 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 1976). . Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. . Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Smith v. Smith, 309 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). . Cf. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973).…
-
Howell v. State, 337 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…sponte strike a record-on-appeal, or dismiss an appeal, or to affirm the order or judgment appealed, in those cases wherein the unequivocal mandate of the Florida Appellate Rules have been flagrantly ignored. (See Smith v. Smith, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 309 So. 2d 615) Nor is anything here said intended to be construed as being contrary to the principle that in the absence of a sufficient record demonstrating error (or an abuse of discretion) on the part of the trial court an appellate court will afford to the or…
-
Silver Springs Shores, Inc. v. Dep't OF Revenue, 336 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…an Baseball Cap, Inc. v. Duzinski, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 308 So. 2d 639; Okaloosa Island L. Ass’n, Inc. v. Okaloosa Island A., Fla.App. 1st, 1975, 308 So. 2d 120; Davis v. Sails, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 306 So. 2d 615, and Smith v. Smith, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 309 So. 2d 615) Failure to substantially comply with the requirements of that rule will result in this Court, either upon motion of the opposing party or of its own volition, striking such brief. Examination of petitioner’s brief reveals that petitioner has not s…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. Brown, 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Houston R. White v. White, 296 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Ruhnau v. Ruhnau, 299 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Okaloosa Island Leaseholders Ass'n, Inc. v. Okaloosa Island Auth., 308 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)