ROBERT S. MCPEAK, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA L. MCPEAK, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony to the wife, holding that the parties' substantially equal age, earning ability, income, and assets after equitable distribution precluded alimony and attorney's fees awards.
When parties' age, earning ability, present income, and assets after equitable distribution are sufficiently equal, neither permanent nor rehabilitative alimony nor attorney's fees should be awarded.
[1] When the parties' age, earning ability, present income, and assets after equitable distribution are sufficiently equal, neither permanent nor rehabilitative alimony nor a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a divorce case, the trial court awarded permanent periodic alimony to the wife and ordered the husband to pay the wife's attorney's fees.…
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 Earning Ability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After examining the record in this case we find that the age, earning ability, present income and assets of the parties after equitable distribution are sufficiently equal that neither permanent nor rehabilitative alimony should be awarded in this case.1 Likewise and for the same reason, the trial court was correct in declining to order the husband to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees.2 Accordingly the case is affirmed in all particulars except the award of permanent periodic alimony to the wife is reversed.
REVERSED.
COWART and PETERSON, JJ., and ANTOON, J., II, Associate Judge, concur. . See Kinzler v. Kinzler, 497 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 453 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1984); see also Pirino v. Pirino, 549 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (Pirino II); Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1336 (Fla.1986); Potter v. Potter, 477 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
. See Powers v. Powers, 549 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Blankenship v. Blankenship, 502 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Beaver v. Beaver, 500 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Sizemore v. Sizemore, 487 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); McIntyre v. McIntyre, 434 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Campbell v. Chalermsri V. Campbell, 432 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- McINTYRE v. McINTYRE, 434 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Pirino v. Pirino, 549 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Thad Richard Sizemore, Jr. v. Sizemore, 487 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Blankenship v. Blankenship, 502 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Woodard v. Woodard, 477 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Beaver v. Beaver, 500 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Potter v. Potter, 477 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)