JOE ANDREW ROBERTSON, APPELLANT,
v.
DELPHINE M. ROBERTSON, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s award of lump sum alimony to the wife. Contrary to appellant’s claim of error we compliment the trial court for the innovative way in which it dealt with the financial woes brought upon the parties and their children by virtue of the divorce. The trial court was entitled to make some alimony award because of the substantially disparate earning abilities and incomes of the parties. The trial court chose to award the husband’s interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony instead of a permanent periodic award. The value of the award was approximately $10,000.00. However, the award provided the wife and children with a place to live at a moderate cost and also provided the wife some financial security in the face of coming years of living on a limited income.
WALDEN, J., and SMITH, FREDRICKA G., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wellman v. Wellman, 504 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…permanent periodic alimony, and in addition to rehabilitative alimony, was appropriate in view of parties’ disparate incomes and earning abilities and wife’s substantial contributions to marriage and to husband’s education); Robertson v. Robertson, 473 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (affirming award of marital home to wife as lump sum alimony in lieu of a permanent periodic award where there was a substantial disparity in parties’ earning abilities and incomes). Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the…
-
Mayor v. Mayor, 570 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…r husband’s sundry arguments attacking each of the above awards, but are not persuaded thereby. See, e.g., Canakaris v. Canakaris,. 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Martinez-Cid v. Martinez-Cid, 559 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Robertson v. Robertson, 473 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); §§ 61.08 and 61.16, Fla.Stat. (1989). Affirmed.…
-
Barbieri v. Barbieri, 582 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…tted to use a lump sum distribution in lieu of, or in addition to, periodic or rehabilitative alimony. De La Guardia v. De La Guardia, 536 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Wellman v. Wellman, 504 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Robertson v. Robertson, 473 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The trial court’s award in this case was permissible since the husband has a greater earning capacity and he received the wife’s interest in the plumbing business. Given the wife’s lower earning potential, the lump sum award app…