JOHN M. STARLING, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTER F. STARLING, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a dissolution action, the court erred in awarding a special equity in the marital home and lump sum alimony to the appellee, but the periodic alimony award and other aspects of the judgment were affirmed.
A trial court errs in awarding a special equity in the marital home and lump sum alimony when the husband lacks the ability to pay and periodic alimony is adequate.
[1] A trial court errs in awarding a special equity in the marital home to a spouse in a dissolution action when the petition for dissolution was filed before Ball v. …
[2] A trial court errs in awarding lump sum alimony when the obligor lacks the ability to pay and an adequate periodic alimony award has been made.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn M. Starling appealed a dissolution judgment in which the trial court awarded Ester F. Starling a special equity in the marital home and lump sum …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Equity In Marital Property cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
In this appeal from a judgment in a dissolution action the court erred in awarding a special equity in the marital home to the appellee. Steinhauer v. Stein- hauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). This case is not affected by the decision in Ball v. Ball, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976) because the petition for dissolution was filed before the decision in Ball was final. The court also erred in awarding lump sum alimony to the appellee in view of the lack of ability of the husband to pay the amount awarded and further in view of the adequacy of the periodic alimony award. Gesford v. Gesford, 337 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. We note from pleadings filed in this court that the trial court has under consideration a petition for temporary relief pending appeal which was filed after the taking of this appeal as a petition for modification. One of the errors alleged in this appeal is that the periodic alimony award was excessive. We have given the order of the trial court the benefit of the presumption of correctness and cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court but upon remand the trial court is not precluded from considering any change in circumstances affecting the need for alimony and the ability to pay. That need or ability may or may not be affected by this opinion.
The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part and this cause remanded for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
MOORE, J., concurs.
CROSS, J., concurs only in conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Emil Rossodivita v. The King's Surf Ltd., 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Steinhauer v. Lossie S. Steinhauer, 252 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Gesford v. Gesford, 337 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)