Herzog v. Herzog
Citation | 346 So.2d 56 |
Decision Date | 10 March 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 49498,49498 |
Parties | Flora HERZOG, Petitioner, v. Gerald Joseph HERZOG, Respondent. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Alan R. Dakan of High, Stack, Davis & Lazenby, Miami, for petitioner.
John W. Prunty of Prunty, Ross, DeLoach & Olsen, Miami, for respondent.
By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District (Herzog v. Herzog, 330 So.2d 116), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of this Court (Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976)), as well as a prior decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District (Tyrrell v. Tyrrell, 281 So.2d 221), and the District Court of Appeal, Second District (Hobbs v. Hobbs, 136 So.2d 363) on the same point of law. We have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Petitioner wife filed suit for dissolution of marriage. The trial court entered judgment of dissolution granting (wife) petitioner permanent alimony, the marital home and attorney fees. In so holding, the court found in part:
The court further found that the husband had disposed of the jointly owned personal property from the residence of the parties, and also assets of Gerald J. Herzog, Inc., of which petitioner was a majority owner.
Upon appeal, the District Court affirmed the award of permanent alimony and reversed the award of the home and one-half of the attorney's fees. In reversing the award of the home the court determined that it was to be held as tenants in common, since respondent gave good and valuable consideration in keeping with his agreement to purchase a one-half interest. Concerning the attorney fees, the District Court said:
The District Court's opinion does not point to any legal error committed by the trial court, but instead finds error based upon an apparent re-evaluation of the evidence.
In Shaw, supra, this Court said:
This was essentially what the First District Court held in Tyrrell, supra:
The Second District Court in Hobbs, supra, stated in part:
"(T)he criterion is not that we would have ruled differently had we been in the position of the chancellor but whether we conclude, with requisite assurance, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. Green
...of the trial court is cloaked with a presumption of validity and should not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Greenwood v. Greenwood, 251 So.2d 665 (Fla.1971); Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So.2d 222 (......
-
Tibbs v. State
...We have consistently recognized that appellate courts may not reweigh evidence. They may only assess its sufficiency. See Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Westerman v. Shell's City, Inc., 265 So.2d 43 (Fla.1972). So now to characterize our fo......
-
Smith v. Smith, 79-546
...of discretion. We reach the same conclusion in rejecting the appellant's attack on the provisions made for child support. Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 We do find error, however, in those portions of the judgment which in effect 12 granted the wife an......
-
Gorman v. Gorman, 80-338
...the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976). Even though property is jointly owned by a husband and wife, it is within the trial cour......