JOYCE OLSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
BEN T. OLSEN, II, AND NORTH SHORE BANK, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 divorce appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a lump-sum alimony award of $750 per month for twenty months and remanded for reconsideration of periodic alimony payments. The court found the chancellor abused his discretion by awarding lump-sum alimony without satisfying the legal requirements established in Yandell v. Yandell.
The court held that the chancellor abused his discretion by awarding lump-sum alimony without satisfying the conditions set forth in Yandell v. Yandell. The court reversed the lump-sum award and remanded for the chancellor to enter an order for periodic alimony payments based on the appellant's needs and the appellee's ability to pay.
“The Supreme Court of Florida has set forth in Yandell v. Yandell, Fla. 1949, 39 So. 2d 554, the basic conditions under which chancellors should use lump-sum alimony rather than the normal periodic payments of alimony. The instant case clearly fails to come within these limitations upon the chancellor's discretion.”
Establishes the legal standard for when lump-sum alimony is appropriate and finds the lower court failed to meet it
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoyce Olsen was the plaintiff-wife in a divorce suit and was granted a decree of divorce with lump-sum alimony of $750 per month payable for twenty mo…
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.
The appellant was the plaintiff-wife in a- divorce suit. She was granted a decree of divorce and lump-sum alimony of $750 per month, payable for twenty months. This appeal urges error in the amount of the alimony. The substance of appellant’s argument before this court is that she was entitled to alimony of some $2,000 per month so that she might continue to live in the style to which she had become accustomed during the marriage of ten months. The appellee, on the other hand, argues that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in the award of alimony. The chancellor appears to have found that the sum of $15,000 in periodic payments would be some salve to appellant’s feelings. We find no support in the record for this allowance. The Supreme Court of Florida has set forth in Yandell v. Yandell, Fla. 1949, 39 So.2d 554, the basic conditions under which chancellors should use lump-sum alimony rather than the normal periodic payments of alimony. The instant case clearly fails to come within these limitations upon the chancellor’s discretion. We have considered appellant’s *776remaining points directed to the evidence and to her claimed right to the use of the home and find no error demonstrated.
We therefore remand this cause with directions to the chancellor to enter an order for alimony to be paid in periodic installments, taking into consideration the needs of the appellant and the ability of the appellee. This is not to suggest that the chancellor may not take into consideration the many guides and factors which the decided cases furnish upon the subject of the amount of alimony to be awarded a divorced wife. It should be specifically noted, however, that these guides and factors do not include the relative merits of the personal lives of the parties involved. The chancellor is.specifically authorized to take such additional testimony as he should find necessary and proper.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williamson v. Veva C. Williamson, 353 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…, the Third District Court of Appeal held in Latta v. Latta, 121 So. 2d 42, 45 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1960) that alimony is not determined upon the basis of fault and is independent and apart from the grounds for divorce, and in a later case, Olsen v. Olsen, 158 So. 2d 775, 776 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963), commented that the guides and factors used to determine an award of alimony do not include the relative merits of the personal lives of the parties involved. Regardless of the prior law, a new concept was introduced by the…
-
Cornelius v. Cornelius, 382 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…r and above the requirements ... of his business or employment, or the preservation of his professional activities.” Id. at 556. The Yandell rule was generally followed in later cases. E. g., Goode v. Goode, 76 So. 2d 794 (Fla.1954); Olsen v. Olsen, 158 So. 2d 775 (Fla.3d DCA 1963); Aufseher v. Aufseher, 217 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Prior to the 1971 Marital Dissolution Act, the law on alimony remained free from uncertainty as to what factors should be taken into consideration when determining whether…
-
Baggett v. Baggett, 347 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…financial position of the parties or such circumstances as the duration of the marriage make this type award advantageous to both parties.3 See Goode v. Goode, 76 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1954); Lindley v. Lindley, 84 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1955); Olsen v. Olsen, 158 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963). Recently in Cann v. Cann, 334 So. 2d 325, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), we distinguished the term “special equities”, i.e., meaning [*1066] special circumstances to justify such an award, from financial or unusual contributions duri…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashleigh M. Moye v. Moye (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)