GUIRLA FOURCAND, APPELLANT,
v.
ENICK FOURCAND, 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.
A wife appeals a final dissolution of marriage order, contending that the trial court erred in denying her motion to open the case based on alleged incompetence of her trial counsel. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to reopen the case.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to open. The trial court, having presided over the dissolution hearing and heard the motion, was in the best position to determine whether reopening was warranted, and nothing in the record supports the wife's contention of an abuse of discretion.
“The trial court's grant or denial of a motion to open, modify, or vacate a judgment of dissolution of marriage lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Establishes the legal standard governing trial court decisions on motions to reopen dissolution judgments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife and husband were parties to a divorce proceeding. At the conclusion of the dissolution hearing, the trial court orally announced its findings…
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 Incompetence Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, C.J.
Guirla Fonrcand (wife) appeals the trial court’s final order dissolving the parties’ marriage. Determining that the trial court committed no reversible error, we affirm.
The wife’s main argument on appeal is that the trial court reversibly erred in denying her motion to open the case based upon the alleged incompetence of her trial counsel, said motion having been filed after the trial court orally announced its findings at the conclusion of the dissolution hearing. We disagree.
The trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to open, modify, or vacate a judgment of dissolution of marriage lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Paris v. Paris, 412 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
In this case, the wife’s motion set forth the additional evidence she would have presented to the court if her motion to open was granted. The trial court which heard the motion and which presided over the dissolution hearing was in the best position to determine whether to allow the case to be opened to present this additional evidence. Nothing in the record supports the wife’s contention that the failure to open case was an abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.