MICHAEL E. HANRAHAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARILYN B. HANRAHAN, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the former husband of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage that equitably distributed the parties’ marital assets and liabilities and awarded the former wife rehabilitative alimony for support. Although the overall plan of asset distribution and support fashioned by the trial court appears to be reasonable under the circumstances, we find it necessary to reverse the award of rehabilitative alimony because the evidence and the findings in the appealed judgment are legally insufficient to support a specific plan of rehabilitation. Clance v. Clarice, 576 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). As this reversal of the rehabilitative alimony award will affect the overall scheme of asset distribution and support, we also vacate all provisions in the judgment effecting the distribution of marital assets and remand the case for further proceedings. See Wendroff v. Wendroff 614 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The dissolution of the marriage is not affected by this appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ZEHMER, BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collinsworth v. Collinsworth, 624 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…the circumstances of the case, but merely remand that issue along with the other issues for reconsideration and determination in light of the final plan for equitable distribution and support to be fashioned by the trial court. Hanrahan v. Hanrahan, 618 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Spillert v. Spillert, 603 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Finally, Appellant contends that, given the inequitable distribution of the marital assets and liabilities, the circuit court erred in holding that the wife is entitled…
-
Candy W. Shiveley v. Shiveley, 635 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ld be empowered to revisit the entire support plan if it is asked to clarify or reconsider part of it. See Noah v. Noah, 491 So. 2d 1124, 1128 (Fla.1986); Collins-worth v. Collinsworth, 624 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Hanrahan v. Hanra-han, 618 So. 2d 779, 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Finally, we provisionally grant appellant’s petition for attorney’s fees and costs at the appellate level and remand to the trial court to determine the amount of such an award. Dresser v. Dresser, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1s…
-
Francine T. Brock v. Brock, 682 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…a.1994); Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So. 2d 327, 329-330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Further, courts have held that a viable rehabilitative plan must be presented at the time the request for rehabilitative alimony is made. Berki at 534; Hanrahan v. Hanrahan, 618 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Since rehabilitative alimony is a projection based upon assumptions and probabilities, O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), the plan must be in writing in the event the plan or goal is not achieved. This gives…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wendroff v. Wendroff, 614 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Clance v. Clance, 576 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)