MEHRAN ETESAM, APPELLANT,
v.
MALIHEH CHASEBI, 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.
The court held that without a transcript, it could not review the husband's argument that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding permanent alimony.
The former husband appealed a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, specifically challenging the award of permanent periodic alimony. The trial c…
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 Appellate Review Without Transcript cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Mehran Etesam appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm.
The appellant former husband contends that the trial court should not have awarded permanent periodic alimony to the appellee former wife. There was a bench trial of the case, but no court reporter and thus no transcript available for purposes of this appeal.
In deciding whether to award permanent alimony, the trial court is to consider the factors set forth in subsection 61.08(2), Florida Statutes (1997). See also Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201-02 (Fla.1980).
The final judgment recited that this was a fifteen-year marriage, although there had been a four-year separation prior to judgment. The wife was forty-six and able to earn approximately $15,000 annually through retail sales, while the husband, age thirty-eight, was an engineer with earnings of approximately $49,000 annually. The court found that the wife needed alimony “in order to provide for her future needs as established by the evidence,” and that the husband has the ability to pay it.
We see nothing in the recitation in the final judgment that indicates the trial court misunderstood the applicable legal standards. In the absence of a transcript, we are unable to entertain the husband’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering permanent alimony. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1151-52 (Fla.1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Claudio Martinez v. Martinez, 761 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…e lower end, or gray area, of a long-term marriage for which the courts generally award permanent periodic alimony. Nelson v. Nelson, 721 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Oxley v. Oxley, 695 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); see also Etesam v. Chasebi, 751 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Typically, for purposes of determining permanent periodic alimony, courts must take into consideration the duration of the parties’ marriage. Generally, the time period between the filing of the petition for dissolution of the ma…
-
Almodovar v. Almodovar, 754 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…We affirm the portion of the judgment awarding the former wife alimony. “In the absence of a transcript, we are unable to entertain the husband’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering permanent alimony.” Etesam v. Chasebi, 751 So. 2d 1261, 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1151-52 (Fla.1979)). The final judgment demonstrates that the court applied the correct legal standard. See § 61.08(2), Fla. Stat. (1997); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)