W. B. LEONARD, APPELLANT,
v.
SANN LEONARD, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stay Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant has filed a motion to stay the issuance of our mandate pending disposition of his application for certiorari in the Supreme Court. In his motion the appellant contends that he is entitled to deduct the temporary alimony payments he made pending appeal from the amount of lump sum alimony he was originally ordered to pay the appellee now that the lump sum alimony award has been affirmed. He further asserts that our issuance of mandate will preclude him from receiving meaningful review of that issue in the Supreme Court. Although in this appeal the husband challenged the authority of the trial court to award the temporary alimony, and by our affirmance we have obviously rejected such contention, 405 So. 2d 732, we are of the view that the issue as to whether the husband would be entitled to credit has not yet been resolved by an appropriate order of the trial court. The motion for stay of mandate is denied.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Perez, 524 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…nd conclusions of law. Therefore we affirm the final judgment in favor of Perez for $40,000 on the authority of Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Acme Electrical Contractors, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) and Rudick v. Rudick, 408 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We also find support for our decision in Jobear, Inc. v. Dewind Machinery Co., 402 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In Jobear we held that a plaintiff’s acceptance of a check which expressly stated that its endorsement would cons…
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. Sann Leonard, 405 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)