Della-Giustina v. Della-Giustina
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1ConcurrenceWarner, Judge
With respect to the marital home and the commercial property, the trial court said in its final judgment, “The testimony concerning transfer of property for deceptive purposes is self-serving and not worthy of belief.” The wife had argued below that the husband had transferred the properties to avoid creditors and thus being with unclean hands, could not seek to recover these properties in these proceedings, citing Studdle v. Studdle, 267 So.2d 688 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1972), and Marcel v. Marcel, 132 So.2d 210 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1961). I gather from the above statement that the trial court disregarded…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Canakaris v. CanakarisSupreme Court of Florida · 1980
- Ball v. BallSupreme Court of Florida · 1976
- Sponholtz v. SponholtzSupreme Court of Florida · 1966
- Steele v. LannonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
- Marcel v. MarcelDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1961
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.