ALBERT E. HAGUE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY C. HAGUE, 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.
The court affirmed both the lump sum alimony award of the marital home and the award of permanent alimony.
The husband appealed the trial court's awards of lump sum alimony (his interest in the marital home) and permanent alimony to the wife. The marriage w…
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 Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband appeals the award (as lump sum alimony) of his one-half interest in the marital home of the parties and also the award of permanent alimony to the wife.
As to the lump sum award of the home, we affirm. See the conclusion and opinion expressed on motion for rehearing in MacDonald v. MacDonald, 382 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), wherein the Second District Court of Appeal said, in referring to the opinion of the Supreme Court in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980):
“. . . while not referring to the cases by name . . . clearly tempered the requirement of a positive showing of necessity for lump sum alimony [with respect to the award of the husband’s interest in the marital home] which it announced in Meridith v. Meri-dith, 366 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1978), and Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1976) . . .”
See also the discussions of Canakaris in our opinions in Cuevas v. Cuevas, 381 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
As to the award of permanent alimony, we also affirm. In light of the 31-year duration of the marriage, the age of the wife upon dissolution, the nominal amount of the award, to wit: $40.00 per month, the ability of the husband to pay said nominal award and the needs of the wife, we cannot say the trial judge abused his discretion in entering an award for permanent alimony. Therefore, we are required to affirm that award. Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 371 So. 2d 672 (Fla.1979) adopting Judge Hubbart’s dissent in Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 352 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…e, and with Canakaris itself, we thus affirm the award of the husband’s interest in the home to the wife.3 Seum v. Seum, 384 So. 2d 223 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Lewis v. Lewis, 383 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.4th DCA 1980); Costich v. Costich, supra; Hague v. Hague, 382 So. 2d 852 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); MacDonald v. MacDonald, 382 So. 2d 50 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); see also Creel v. Creel, 378 So. 2d 1251 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the $125,000 cash payment. There is no cognizable “justificatio…
-
Seum v. Seum, 384 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…w, nor abuse of discretion in the challenged portions of the final judgment of dissolution which (a) awarded the wife the husband’s interest in the marital home as lump-sum alimony, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Hague v. Hague, 382 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and cases cited; (b) fixed the amount of permanent periodic alimony, Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976) and (c) provided for the payment of Ms. Seum’s attorney’s fees by Mr. Seum. C…
-
Villano v. Villano, 408 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ich (a) awarded the wife the husband’s interest in the marital home as lump-sum alimony, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1981); Hague v. Hague, 382 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and cases cited and (b) awarded the wife attorney’s fees in the proceedings below, Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra; Dominik v. Dominik, 390 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1976)
- Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 371 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1979)
- Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 352 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Meridith v. Meridith, 366 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1978)
- In re the Est. of Philip Siegel, 366 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1978)
- Cuevas v. Cuevas, 381 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)