W.B. LEONARD, APPELLANT,
v.
SANN LEONARD, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1983-01-19
No. 82-1291
ANSTEAD, BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur.
427 So. 2d 758 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1983)

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.

Synopsis

In a dissolution of marriage case, the husband appealed the trial court's refusal to credit periodic alimony payments against a $300,000 lump sum alimony award. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly denied the credit because both awards were intended to be independent obligations to support the wife.


Holding

The court held that periodic alimony payments should not be credited against a lump sum award when both were awarded as independent obligations. The trial court properly intended the wife to receive the full lump sum in addition to periodic support payments, and such dual awards are within the trial court's discretion.


Headnotes

[1] Periodic alimony payments made by a husband are not credited against a lump sum alimony award when the two awards are intended to be separate and cumulative.

[2] A trial court has the authority to order both lump sum alimony and periodic alimony payable concurrently.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“In this case the husband was obligated to pay both a periodic award and a lump sum award. Those awards were payable regardless of whether the husband appealed or not.”

Establishes the court's key distinction between awards that are independent obligations versus temporary awards pending appeal

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The trial court awarded the wife $300,000 in lump sum alimony and $600 weekly in periodic alimony, with the periodic award to terminate upon full paym…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In a final judgment of dissolution the wife was awarded lump sum alimony in the amount of $300,000.00 and periodic alimony in the amount of $600.00 weekly. The judgment further provided that the periodic award would terminate upon the husband’s full payment of the lump sum award. Following an unsuccessful challenge to these awards on appeal, the husband asked the trial court to credit the amount of periodic payments he had made toward the lump sum obligation owed. The trial court order refusing to allow such'a credit is now before us on appeal.

In essence the husband claims that the periodic alimony constituted temporary alimony pending appeal and he relies on those decisions which have allowed credit for such payments against lump sum awards. Keller v. Keller, 356 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Rankin v. Rankin, 275 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Frischkorn v. Frischkorn, 223 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); and Morton v. Morton, 104 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).

We do not believe these decisions are apt. In this case the husband was obligated to pay both a periodic award and a lump sum award. Those awards were payable regardless of whether the husband appealed or not. It appears from the record that the trial court intended that the wife receive an award of lump sum alimony in addition to any sums needed to support her until the receipt of that lump sum award. We have upheld the trial court’s discretion to make such an award. Leonard v. Leonard, 405 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), cert. denied 417 So. 2d 329 (Fla.1982).

In our view, the order now on review is consistent with the alimony scheme set out in the final judgment and such order was within the trial court’s authority. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

ANSTEAD, BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw