KENNETH M. COYNE, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
JILL M. COYNE, 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.
The court held that while the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony and child support, the payment schedule for permanent alimony should be modified to quarterly due to the husband's bonus income structure.
The husband appealed a final judgment dissolving a twenty-one year marriage, challenging alimony and child support awards. He specifically argued that…
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 Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
The husband appeals the final judgment dissolving the parties’ twenty-one year marriage. He challenges the awards of permanent and rehabilitative alimony to the wife and the support provisions for their two minor children.
The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning such awards, and we find no abuse in the court’s exercise of that discretion. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). Therefore, we reject the husband’s contentions as to the court’s awards.
The husband also argues that the trial court’s requirement that he make all of the alimony and support payments on a monthly basis is inappropriate since he receives a substantial amount of his income in the form of quarterly bonuses. We agree with the husband on this point and grant his request that the payment of permanent alimony be due on a quarterly basis.
Accordingly, we modify the final judgment of dissolution entered June 2,1986, to provide that effective July 1, 1987, the husband may pay the monthly installments of permanent alimony on a quarterly basis, with the first $1,200 quarterly installment due on September 30, 1987. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ount [*683] based upon its imputation of income to the wife. Finally, the trial court should modify the payment schedule for alimony and child support so that its payment coincides with the receipt of bonus income by the husband. See Coyne v. Coyne, 505 So. 2d 1115, 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Attorney’s Fees As to the attorney’s fees awarded to the wife, the trial court’s award exceeds the highest amounts testified to by the witnesses, including the amount previously awarded as temporary fees. The trial court…
-
Kesling v. Kesling, 661 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…ese areas, she may be able to find employment. These circumstances may well justify an award of rehabilitative alimony in addition to permanent alimony. Such awards are proper. See Zelahi v. Zelahi, 646 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Coyne v. Coyne, 505 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The final hearing in this case was held in June 1994. We are unaware of how the parties’ circumstances may have changed since then. Therefore, on remand, the trial court is directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing and determin…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)