ELLEN JOAN ROSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD MARK ROSEN, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur. GARRETT, J., concurs specially with opinion.
GARRETT, Judge,
concurring specially.
The wife sought a money judgment for rehabilitative alimony arrears. Because the wife also owed money to the husband, the trial judge gave the husband an offset. But the husband still owes the wife a special equity award. The setoff could have been applied against either the arrears or the award. I would have preferred that the trial judge had protected the established sanctity of an alimony award. See Chappell v. Chappell, 253 So. 2d 281, 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). However, this court can find no abuse of discretion when the trial judge’s decision amounts to six of one, half a dozen of another.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fleming Cos., Inc. v. Moreira, 690 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…vant of the special employer and thereby precluded by the Workers’ Compensation Act from maintaining a tort action against the special employer. See Rumsey v. Eastern Distribution Inc., 445 So. 2d at 1087; Maxson v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., 554 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The order under review is reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of the appellant. Reversed and remanded.…
-
Cent. Square Tarragon LLC v. Great Divide Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…it impermissibly abandoned the stipulation. In doing so, it erred. The court then abused its discretion in not correcting the error on the purchaser’s motion for new trial. We find the insurer’s reliance on Maxson v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., 554 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), ill-founded. There, the First District Court of Appeal discussed the procedure by which stipulated facts can be read to the jury. Id. at 1213-14. While reading a stipulation may be entirely permissible, the First District did no…
-
Coleman v. Mini-Mac Maint. Serv., Inc., 706 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ed between the employee and the special employer; (2) whether the work done was essentially that of the special employer; and (3) whether the special employer has the right to control the details of the work. See Maxson v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 554 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (citing Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 246 So. 2d 98 (Fla.1971)). There are factual issues as to each of these factors in the instant case. First, there appears to be no express or implied contract for Mini-Mac’s…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chappell v. Chappell, 253 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)