STEVEN DANIEL SMITH, APPELLANT,

v.

REBECCA JANE SMITH, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Ira Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
  …CA 2001). . See Farley v. Farley, 800 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); § 61.08(1), Fla. Stat. (2003) (requiring the trial court to include findings of fact in the final judgment relative to the factors enumerated in section 61.08(2)); Smith v. Smith, 689 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Rausch v. Rausch, 680 So. 2d 624, 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ("We vacate the alimony award because the dissolution judgment fails to include die specific findings of fact required under section 61.08(1), Florida Statutes (1993).”).…
• Pipitone v. Pipitone, 23 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
  …0, 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (citing Hughes v. Hughes, 553 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)). Permanent periodic alimony, which is always for support, is subject to modification. See Nethery v. Nethery, 951 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Smith v. Smith, 689 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). By definition, however, lump sum alimony establishes a fixed monetary obligation that vests immediately, is nonmodifiable, and does not terminate when the payee remarries or when the payor dies. Borchard v. Borchard, 730 So. 2d…
• Brunsman v. Brunsman, 232 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
  …are modifiable. § 61.08(7), Fla. Stat. (2010). Absent agreement bétween' the parties or findings of exceptional circumstances, neither of which are implicated in this case, imposing a non-modifiable alimony requirement is error. Cf. Smith v. Smith, 689 So. 2d 1312, 1312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“[T]here is no provision in the law for ‘non-modifiable permanent alimony5 .... ”). On remand, the court must strike the language in the alimony award that precludes the possibility of future modification. Former Husband…

Authorities Cited

• Rausch v. Rausch, 680 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)