GEORGE W. OWSLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
NAOMI RUTH OWSLEY, 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 a trial court may equitably divide a bank account funded by the husband's salary bonus during marriage, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding lump sum and rehabilitative alimony.
The husband appealed a final judgment of marriage dissolution, challenging the awards of lump sum and rehabilitative alimony. The lump sum alimony was…
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
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the husband George W.' Owsley from a final judgment of marriage dissolution. Mr. Owsley raises two points which we conclude have no merit, and, accordingly, we affirm.
First, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as urged, in awarding the wife Naomi Ruth Owsley $9,000 in lump sum alimony. This award represents one-half of the cash on hand in a certain bank account which the trial court treated as an account of the parties. The trial court divided the parties’ other assets on an equal basis and did so here as well. We reject Mr. Owsley’s contrary arguments upon a holding that a trial court in a marriage dissolution action may equitably divide the parties’ bank account, although funded, as here, entirely by the husband from a salary bonus he earned during the course of the marriage. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980); see also Robinson v. Robinson, 403 So. 2d 1306 (Fla.1980); Lewis v. Lewis, 472 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Second, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as urged, in awarding the wife three years of rehabilitative alimony of $200 a week. Based on this record, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Mr. Owsley could afford the award, and that Mrs. Owsley was in need of same. See Newell v. Newell, 464 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Roffe v. Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); § 61.08, Fla.Stat. (1985).
The final judgment under review is, therefore, in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Roffe v. Moises Roffe, 404 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 403 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1980)
- Newell v. Newell, 464 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Lewis v. Lewis, 472 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)