ROBERT A. MOOREHEAD, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA M. MOOREHEAD, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's award of child support ($900/month), permanent alimony ($500/month), and the husband's interest in the marital home plus $3,000 lump sum alimony to the wife. The court rejected the husband's challenges to the alimony characterization and the disposition of disputed Michigan property.
The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony or in setting the child support amount. Additionally, the court found no merit in the husband's contention regarding the Michigan property because the trial court made no disposition of that property in its final judgment.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent alimony when the circumstances warrant it over rehabilitative alimony.
[2] A trial court's award of child support will be affirmed if it is not an abuse of discretion.
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“On this record we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in awarding permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony or in ordering the stated amount of child support.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review and affirms the trial court's discretionary decisions on alimony and child support.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were married for sixteen years; the wife was 38 and the husband 43 at dissolution. Five children were born of the marriage, with two still…
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 Property Division cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which, in pertinent part, awarded the wife (1) child support in the amount of $900 a month; (2) permanent alimony in the amount of $500 a month; and (8) the husband’s interest in the marital home plus $3000 as lump sum alimony.
At the time of the final hearing the parties had been married for sixteen years. The husband and wife were forty-three and thirty-eight years of age, respectively. Five children were born of the marriage, two of whom were still of preschool age at the time of dissolution. The wife has a high school education. Except for a brief period at the beginning of the marriage, the wife has not worked outside the home, though she did help out in the husband’s office from time to time. The husband is a chiropractor whose net income averaged $25,000 between 1980 and 1982. A sizeable portion of the husband’s net worth is attributable to an inheritance he received in the form of cash and stock. The husband also received, by inter vivos gift from his mother, two lots in Michigan worth approximately $15,000. Although the property was titled in the husband’s name, the wife testified that the mother intended the conveyance as a gift to both parties.
On this record we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in awarding permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony or in ordering the stated amount of child support. Additionally, we find no merit in the husband’s contention that the court erred in awarding the wife half interest in the Michigan property. Our review of the final judgment reveals that the court made no disposition with respect to this property. See 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments §§ 4, 78 (1969).
AFFIRMED.
SCHEB, A.C.J., OTT, J., and STEIN-BERG, RALPH, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D'Agostino v. D'Agostino, 487 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…In this dissolution of marriage case the ex-husband appeals from the trial court’s [*1104] award of permanent, rather than rehabilitative, alimony to the ex-wife. We affirm. See Walter v. Walter, 464 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1985); Moorehead v. Moorehead, 471 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We find no merit in the remaining points on appeal. Affirmed. RYDER, C.J., and LEHAN and SAND-ERLIN, JJ., concur.…