
    Loretta R. MALLEY, Appellant, v. William Lee MALLEY, Appellee.
    No. 91-2489.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    July 1, 1992.
    On Petition for Rehearing Sept. 2, 1992.
    Lewis Kapner of Lewis Kapner, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Peggy Rowe-Linn of Peggy Rowe-Linn, P.A., and Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Klein & Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appel-lee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Lanigan v. Lanigan, 78 So.2d 92 (Fla.1955). As to the claims that the court erred in refusing to determine alimony and equitable distribution irrespective of the court’s determination that the prior Mexican divorce decree was valid, the simple response is that no request for such a determination was made, either in the pleadings, opening and closing arguments or upon the trial court’s announcement of its judgment. Further, we find no abuse of discretion as to the court’s determination of the attorney’s fees issue.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Senior Judge, concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

The appellant points us to one sentence of closing argument which she claims raises the issue of alimony and equitable distribution irrespective of the validity of the Mexican divorce. While there is a passing reference, the issue was not argued to the trial court and when the trial court announced its judgment, the court asked to be advised if there were any other outstanding issues. Appellant’s attorney only raised the issue of enforcement of a foreign judgment and the issue of attorney’s fees. He never asked for a determination of alimony and equitable distribution, given the court’s ruling on the Mexican divorce. Therefore, we stand by our prior determination. The trial court cannot err by failing to rule on an issue not placed before it by the parties.  