KENNETH W. OSBORNE, APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA L. OSBORNE, 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.
In a dissolution of marriage appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's award of permanent periodic alimony and asset valuations but reversed and remanded regarding the custodianship of a children's college fund, which the trial court failed to specify.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent periodic alimony and the asset valuations were supported by competent, substantial evidence, but the trial court erred by failing to specify custodianship of the children's college fund.
[1] In a dissolution of marriage, a trial court must specify which party is custodian of marital property designated for the children and the conditions under which such prop…
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 intelligenceKenneth and Linda Osborne divorced. The trial court awarded permanent periodic alimony to Linda and attributed certain values to the parties' principa…
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 Valuation Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, appellant complains (1) that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded permanent periodic alimony to appellee; (2) that the values attributed to the principal assets of the parties by the trial court are not supported by competent, substantial evidence; and (3) that the trial court failed to specify which of the parties would be custodian of a $4,000.00 “college fund,” which the evidence established was the property of the parties’ children.
Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the award of permanent periodic alimony did not constitute a clear abuse of discretion, and that there is competent, substantial evidence supporting the values attributed by the trial court to the principal assets of the parties. Accordingly, we affirm the portions of the final judgment which address those matters.
We conclude, further, that the trial court should have specified which of the parties is to be the custodian of the children’s “college fund,” and the conditions pursuant to which that fund is to be held. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to amend the final judgment by adding a provision specifying which of the parties is to be the custodian of that fund, and the conditions pursuant to which it is to be held. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.