SAMUEL WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
RUBY WHITE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed alimony award but remanded to specify a time limit for the wife's exclusive use and possession of the marital home.
An award of exclusive use and possession of marital property must be for a specified period of time, not indefinite.
[1] An award of exclusive use and possession of marital property must specify a termination date or event, such as remarriage, death, or another condition within the trial co…
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 intelligenceHusband and wife were married for thirty-four years; wife raised seven children, is now fifty-two years old, in poor health, and lacks employment expe…
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 Exclusive Use and Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution which awards the wife the exclusive use and possession of the parties marital' residence and $500.00 per month permanent alimony. We affirm both awards.
The evidence clearly establishes the wife’s need for permanent alimony in the amount awarded and the husband’s ability to pay that amount. Further, the parties were married for thirty-four years, during which time the wife raised seven children. The wife is now fifty-two years old, in poor health, and without employment experience or marketable skills. Thus the award to the wife of exclusive use and possession of the parties marital home was justified. Taylor v. Taylor, 381 So. 2d 1353 (Fla.1980). However, we agree that the award of exclusive use of property should be for a specified period of time. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949, 952 (Fla.1981). We therefore remand to the trial court for entry of an amended final judgment providing for the award of exclusive use and possession until the wife remarries or dies or for some other specified period in the discretion of the trial court.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MILLS, LARRY G. SMITH, and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holiday Care Ctr. v. Scriven, 418 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…re was no other evidence that she could not then gainfully work, she was no longer totally disabled and unable, in any anatomic sense, to work. For that reason temporary total disability benefits were no longer payable. Forming Contractors v. Barry, 413 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sanford Nursing & Convalescent Center v. Lowery, 405 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also (applying pre-1979 law) Walter Glades Condominium v. Morris, 393 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Cling Electric, Inc. v. Jones, 376 So…
-
Sanlando Util. Corp. & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Morris, 418 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…bare complaints of pain will not excuse a search for employment, Lindsley Home Care Centers v. Fuster, 413 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), especially in the face of medical testimony as to a claimant’s ability to work. Forming Contractors v. Barry, 413 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Further, this case does not fall within the narrow situation excusing a work search noted in Square G. Construction, supra, at 399-400 at n. 4, wherein a claimant sought TTD benefits for a very limited six-week period without a…
-
Mauricio A. Arze v. Soheila Sadough-Arze, 789 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…en the minor child attains the age of eighteen, as well as a provision that the atuard may be terminated if the party in residence remarries. See Kirkland, 568 So. 2d at 496; Messal v. Messal, 424 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); White v. White, 413 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Savage v. Savage, 556 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Harvey v. Harvey, 411 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). It is error to extend exclusive use and possession of the marital home beyond the attainment of majority of a…
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
- Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1980)
- Trenton Taylor v. Taylor, 381 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 1980)