BEN T. OLSEN, II, APPELLANT,
v.
JOYCE OLSEN 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 alimony appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a chancellor's order awarding the wife $125 per week in permanent periodic alimony following remand from a prior reversal of a lump sum award. The court held that alimony awards rest within the chancellor's sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion or patent error.
The court affirmed the alimony award, holding that alimony awards rest within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor based on the evidence, the wife's needs, and the husband's ability to pay, and such awards should not be disturbed unless they represent an abuse of discretion or are patently erroneous.
“the matters of allowance of alimony and child support are within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor, based on the evidence presented, and due consideration of the needs of the recipients and the extent of the obligor's ability to meet these burdens”
Establishes the legal standard that alimony awards rest within the chancellor's discretion based on the recipient's needs and obligor's ability to pay
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA divorce was granted to the wife with an initial lump sum alimony award of $15,000. The wife appealed and the appellate court reversed, remanding for…
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 Periodic Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by defendant-husband from an order on mandate in which plain*277tiff-wife was awarded $125 a week permanent alimony. This award followed plaintiff’s appeal and our reversal1 of a lump sum alimony award of $15,000 in the final decree in which the wife was granted a divorce. We remanded the 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 plaintiff, the ability of the defendant, and the many guides and factors which the decided cases furnish upon the subject of alimony. There was also authorization for the chancellor to take such additional testimony as he should find necessary.
The chancellor entered his order on the mandate after hearing oral argument of counsel, but without additional testimony.
Appellant’s point on appeal questions the propriety of the chancellor’s ordering permanent alimony in the amount of $125 per week in that such award is highly exorbitant
Appellee has filed cross-assignments of error claiming the award of $125 per week is inadequate in light of her needs and the husband’s ability to pay. She also asks for additional costs.
We have carefully considered the assignments and cross assignments of error in the light of the record and the controlling decisions, and have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear.
In Rogoff v. Rogoff, Fla.App. (1959), 115 So.2d 456, this court said:
“It is well settled that the matters of allowance of alimony and child support are within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor, based on the evidence presented, and due consideration of the needs of the recipients and the extent of the obligor’s ability to meet these burdens. [Citations omitted.] Such awards should not be disturbed unless they represent an abuse of discretion or are patently erroneous on the record; and an appellant carries the responsibility in an appellate court of clearly demonstrating such error. Here the appellant has not made such required showing.” 115 So.2d at 458.
The order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rogoff v. Rogoff, 115 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Olsen v. Olsen, 158 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)