Case Name: Peter NIKOLAS, Appellant, v. Constantine D. ALLEN and Coula C. Allen, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1969-12-30
Citations: 230 So. 2d 56
Docket Number: No. 69-488
Parties: Peter NIKOLAS, Appellant, v. Constantine D. ALLEN and Coula C. Allen, Appellees.
Judges: Before PEARSON, C. J., and HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 230
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
Peter NIKOLAS, Appellant, v. Constantine D. ALLEN and Coula C. Allen, Appellees.
No. 69-488.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Dec. 30, 1969.
Ronald S. Golub, Miami, for appellant.
Frank & Grossman, Miami Beach, Stephens, Demos, Magill & Thornton, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, C. J., and HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The husband in a divorce case transferred a large sum of money to the appellant. The money was gathered together by the liquidation of almost all of the husband's assets, and the transfer was made five days before the husband filed suit for divorce. The trial court found that the transfer was fraudulent. The appellant, who had received the funds, brings this appeal to reverse the judgment in favor of the appellee, the wife in the divorce case.
Two points are presented. The first urges that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. We have reviewed the record and hold that the evidence is sufficient. See Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 706.
The second point urges error in the denial of appellant's petition for rehearing which was based upon newly discovered evidence. The alleged newly discovered evidence did not meet the requirements set out in Dade National Bank of Miami v. Kay, Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 24, and Drew v. Chambers, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 589. Therefore no error has been shown.
Affirmed.