ARTHUR CLAYTON ZEDIKER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY CATHERINE ZEDIKER, 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.
Arthur Zediker appealed a dissolution of marriage judgment awarding alimony and child support. The Florida appellate court affirmed the alimony award as supported by competent substantial evidence but reversed and remanded the portion requiring mortgage and utility payments for improper classification and lack of termination provisions.
The award of permanent periodic alimony was supported by competent substantial evidence and properly granted. However, the trial court erred by failing to classify the mortgage and utility payments as either alimony or child support and by failing to specify termination provisions for these payments.
[1] An award of permanent periodic alimony is permissible when supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] A trial court must classify mortgage and utility payments ordered as either alimony or child support.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the award of permanent periodic alimony to appellee was supported by competent substantial evidence”
Establishes that the alimony award met the legal standard and was properly granted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for 15 years and had three minor children. Following dissolution, the trial court awarded the marital home and furnishings to…
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 Permanent Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of this 15-year marriage, awarding alimony to the wife and support for the three minor children of the parties. We reject appellant’s first contention on appeal, as we find that the award of permanent periodic alimony to appellee was supported by competent substantial evidence. Sisson v. Sisson, 336 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1976).
Appellant’s second contention, that the trial court erred in ordering him to make utility and mortgage payments without classifying such payments as alimony or child support, has merit. In its final judgment, the trial court awarded the marital home and furnishings to appellee as her sole property, and stated:
Husband is further hereby ordered to make the monthly mortgage payment on said property, in the amount of $200.68 per month, until same is sold or until the mortgage presently existing on said premises is paid in full. Husband shall further pay the utilities consumed by Wife and the parties’ children at the former marital residence up to but not exceeding the sum of $160.00 per month.
Appellant argues that Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 324 So. 2d 87 (Fla.1975), requires clarification of this portion of the order below. The Moore case, supra, holds that the trial court erred in failing to specify whether the husband’s obligation to pay mortgage payments was alimony or child support. The court noted the tax consequences of such a classification in reversing and remanding the judge’s order for clarification. Similarly, in Jassy v. Jassy, 347 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), it was held erroneous to require the husband to pay mortgage payments on a home awarded to the wife without properly classifying the award or providing for termination of payments upon the wife’s remarriage or death.
Accordingly, that portion of the final judgment which orders the husband to make utility and mortgage payments is reversed and remanded, with directions that the payments be reclassified as alimony or child support subject to termination on the same terms. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
LARRY G. SMITH, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr. (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zediker v. Zediker, 444 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…the parties’ fifteen-year marriage was dissolved in 1980, the wife was awarded custody of the three children, child support, permanent periodic alimony and the marital home. This court affirmed the marital dissolution judgment in Zediker v. Zediker, 398 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Thereafter, the husband, a successful dentist, continued both his professional practice and residence .in Panama City, where he had close family ties, while the wife, intending to pursue a second college degree in engineering, m…
-
Frechter v. Frechter, 548 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…1981). While we agree that exclusive occupancy should be affirmed, we find that the order should be sent back to the trial court for a statement as to whether it is being awarded for the purpose of child support or alimony. See Zediker v. Zediker, 398 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), citing Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA) (judgment dissolving marriage should specify whether husband’s obligation to pay mortgage payments is alimony, child support or otherwise), cert. denied, 324 So. 2d 87 (Fl…
-
Kraus v. Kraus, 454 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ssue, we remand for clarification. See Scheuermann v. Scheuermann, 423 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Caldwell v. Caldwell, 400 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We similarly remand for clarification of the second issue. See Zediker v. Zediker, 398 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), a situation similar to this one, in which the court ordered the husband to make mortgage and utility payments. Noting that there are tax consequences to be considered, the appellate court remanded in Zediker for denomination of…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sisson v. Sisson, 336 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1976)
- Jassy v. Jassy, 347 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Markham v. Escom Enters., Inc., 324 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1975)
- Mogul v. McCLASKEY Realty, Inc., 324 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1975)