Reference no: EM133577592
Questions: Issue: The legal question(s) at hand/Constitutional Question What does the court need to decide? ? Was the wife entitled to alimony?
Rule: ? Wright v. Wright, 509 So.2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). ? 61.075(1) and 61.075(5)(b), Florida Statutes(Supp.1994). ? Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980) ? Bobb v. Bobb,552 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) ? Cole v. Roberts, 661 So.2d 370, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Facts: What is the case about? Why is it in the court? What do we need to know to understand the decision?
? Trial court held that the wife was not entitled to alimony which she appealed. Appeals court held that the wife is not entitled to alimony but that the trial court should've taken into consideration marital assets and that the trial court shouldn't have taken into consideration her premarital property. ? Marriage lasted 89 days and dated for 11 months.
? Wife was awarded appellate attorney's fees. Holding: The majority decision The rule of law established by this case The answer to the question in the issue What is the reasoning of the majority? The explanation.
? Affirmed in part and reversed in part Reasoning:
? Court affirmed that the wife did not have a right to alimony through the use of the Wright case and that the trial court correctly found that the furniture bought by the husband before their marriage was not eligible for equitable division pursuant to Florida law.
? Court reversed the equitable distribution award because the trial court completely eliminated the wife's interest in marital assets; they used Cankaris to justify this decision. Citation: Melvik v. Melvik, 669 So. 2d 328 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996
For Peer Review, provide the following comments on
1) Is the Court sticking to statutory intent? Is the Court aiming to draw a clear, new line? Or, is the Court balancing interests?
(2) Describe the underlying ethical dilemma and any ambiguities the Court confronts. Discuss, too, the stakeholder's perspectives. Are societal interests undermining individual interests? How much value is the Court placing on different stakeholder interests in this case?
(3) Finally, offer your own opinion-does the Court get it right?