KATHLEEN WRIGHT, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MILLARD B. WRIGHT, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
KATHLEEN WRIGHT, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
MILLARD B. WRIGHT, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
509 So. 2d 334
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1987)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The court hereby certifies to the Supreme Court of Florida that this cause passes upon the following question of great public importance:
May the trial court consider the wife’s forfeiture of alimony upon remarriage as a factor in determining “whether alimony will be awarded and the amount of alimony,” upon dissolution of the subsequent marriage?
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nikula v. Mich. Mut. Ins., 531 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1988)…SHAW, Justice. We review Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Nikula, 509 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), to answer a certified question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The district court held that under paragraph 440.39(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), where a comparatively negligent…
-
Brandt v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 511 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ida (effective June 30, 1983)). . At the time of the hearing, Brandt had received $19,232 in worker’s compensation benefits from Phillips. That amount is 12.82 percent of $150,000. ._ The question, certified in Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Nikula, 509 So. 2d 334, on reh’g, 509 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), is not squarely presented by this appeal because the triad court did not establish what Brandt’s total damages were. Nonetheless, we note our disagreement, and thus apparent conflict with, the Fourth Di…