WILLIAM EHRLICH, APPELLANT,
v.
BRYANN EHRLICH, 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 this Florida divorce appeal, the court affirmed the divorce decree and alimony award but modified the lump-sum payment from $6,000 to $3,150, holding that a lump-sum payment could not be awarded in addition to permanent weekly alimony. The court found the remaining awards—permanent alimony of $150 per week and attorney's fees of $3,000—were supported by the record and within the trial court's discretion.
The court affirmed the divorce decree and the awards for permanent alimony and attorney's fees as within the trial court's proper discretion, but modified the lump-sum payment from $6,000 to $3,150, holding that lump-sum alimony cannot be awarded in conjunction with permanent alimony, and that only $3,150 in unpaid alimony and deposition costs had evidentiary support.
“The excess of $6,000 over that amount has no basis other than as an award of lump-sum alimony, which was not allowable in view of the permanent alimony of $150 per week which was provided for in the decree.”
Establishes the core holding that lump-sum alimony cannot be awarded alongside permanent alimony.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBryann Ehrlich filed for divorce against her husband William, who resided in Pennsylvania. The husband answered the complaint. The trial court entered…
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 Discretionary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee filed suit for divorce in Dade County, against her husband who resided in Pennsylvania. The husband answered. A final decree was entered granting the wife a divorce and ordering the husband to pay $6,000 to the wife plus $150 per week installments of alimony and $3,000 for her attorney.1 On this appeal the husband seeks reversal on several grounds. He challenges the order for payment of $6,000 as constituting a lump-sum alimony which he contends should not be allowed along with permanent alimony payable in installments. He contends that the alimony award was excessive, and objects to the allowance of attorney’s fee as being unsupported by testimony. Also, he contends that costs and fees allowed to the wife incident to taking his deposition in Pennsylvania were excessive.
The rulings of the court which were challenged are shown to have been made in proper exercise of discretion and are supported by the record. But we find it necessary to modify the order for payment *631of the $6,000, ’ which the chancellor said was “for monies due the plaintiff from the defendant.” The amount owing to plaintiff, which has the support of the evidence and record is the unpaid alimony and the costs allowed on the deposition, aggregating $3,150. Temporary attorney fees were absorbed in the final allowance. The excess of $6,000 over that amount has no basis other than as an award of lump-sum alimony, which was not allowable in view of the permanent alimony of $150 per week which was provided for in the decree. See § 65.08, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; Yandell v. Yandell, Fla.1949, 39 So.2d 554; Deigaard v. Deigaard, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 516; Harrison v. Harrison, Fla.App. 1959, 115 So.2d 709.
Paragraph two of the final decree is hereby modified to require payment of $3,150 in place of the sum of $6,000 therein ordered to be paid, and, as so modified, the decree is affirmed.
Modified and affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aldrich v. Aldrich, 163 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1964)…ments of alimony or payment “in a lump sum”. Ch. 23894, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1947. Because of the strict construction of the statute, as amended, as precluding an award of both periodic and lump-sum alimony, see Ehrlich v. Ehrlich, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 630, and cases cited, the Legislature again intervened and amended Section 65.08 by adding the words “or both”, so that a lump-sum award of alimony may now be joined with a periodic-payment award. Ch. 63-145, Laws of 1963. Relevant here, also, as illus…
Authorities Cited
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- Deigaard v. Deigaard, 114 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Claudine Harrison v. Angus D. Harrison, 115 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)