FRANCIS T. CONNOR, APPELLANT,
v.
JUNE V. CONNOR, 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.
Husband's appeal from dissolution judgment reversed in part: trial court erred in denying husband alimony while awarding wife lump sum alimony from husband's marital home interest, and husband's permanent total disability qualified him for alimony under McAllister criteria.
A permanently and totally disabled husband in a dissolution proceeding is entitled to alimony under the McAllister criteria, and the trial court erred in awarding the wife lump sum alimony consisting of the husband's interest in the marital domicile.
[1] A permanently and totally disabled spouse in a dissolution proceeding satisfies the criteria for alimony entitlement and is entitled to receive alimony from the other spo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage proceeding, the husband, who is permanently and totally disabled and unable to support himself, sought alimony while the …
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 Spousal Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the husband from a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his request for alimony and in awarding the wife lump sum alimony in the form of the husband’s one-half interest in the marital domicile. We reverse the final judgment insofar as it denied alimony to the husband and granted alimony to the wife. We find that the award of the husband’s interest in the mari tal domicile was improper under Gesford v. Gesford, 337 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We further reverse the denial of the husband’s prayer for alimony. It is clear from the record appellant is not able to support himself in that he is permanently and totally disabled. The husband’s claim for alimony meets the criteria set out in McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and should have been granted. Therefore, the grant of alimony to the appellee/wife and the denial of alimony to the appellant/husband are reversed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. The judgment is affirmed other than as indicated herein.
REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and BERANEK, JJ., concur. CROSS, J., concurs only in conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Connor v. Connor, 386 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ing the wife credit on sale for any payments she made after separation of the parties, or ones she may make, in excess of her one-half share.6 REVERSED and REMANDED. ORFINGER, J., and BAKER, JOSEPH P., Associate Judge, concur. . Connor v. Connor, 372 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). . Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 330 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1976); Dade County Classroom Teachers’ Assoc. v. Rubin, 238 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 1009, 91 S.Ct. 569, 27 L.Ed.2d 623 (1971). . There shall be no d…
Authorities Cited
- McALLISTER v. McALLISTER, 345 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Gesford v. Gesford, 337 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)