Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Tigran ABRAHAMYAN, Appellant, v. Lilya ARAKELYAN, Appellee.
Affirmed. See § 61.075(7), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage. The date for determining value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable under the circumstances.”); § 55.605(2)(j), Fla. Stat. (2023) (including due process among grounds for nonrecognition of a foreign judgment); Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1108–09 (Fla. 2010) (finding issues not raised in trial court are not preserved for appellate review); Mulligan v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 127 So. 3d 852, 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (noting appellant waived argument on appeal by failing to present or preserve issue in the trial court); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (“The discretionary ruling of the trial judge should be disturbed only when his decision fails to satisfy this test of reasonableness.”); § 61.075(8), Fla. Stat. (“All assets acquired and liabilities incurred by either spouse subsequent to the date of the marriage and not specifically established as nonmarital assets or liabilities are presumed to be marital assets and liabilities.”); § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (2022) (explaining factors trial court can consider when awarding alimony); § 61.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“The court may from time to time, after considering the financial resources of both parties, order a party to pay a reasonable amount for attorney's fees, suit money, and the cost to the other party of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this chapter ․”); Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697, 700 (Fla. 1997) (“[S]ection 61.16 should be liberally—not restrictively—construed to allow consideration of any factor necessary to provide justice and ensure equity between the parties.”).
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 3D24-0197
Decided: April 30, 2025
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)