RHODA GLASSER, APPELLANT,
v.
SEYMOUR GLASSER, 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.
This case involves a Florida appellate court reviewing a chancellor's alimony award after a previous mandate from the same court. The court affirmed the denial of lump sum alimony but reversed the denial of nominal periodic alimony, remanding for reinstatement.
The chancellor did not err in denying lump sum alimony, but did err in disallowing nominal periodic alimony. The wife is entitled to periodic alimony.
“The fixing of the amount of alimony and whether it is to be periodic or a lump sum, is a matter within the discretion to be soundly exercised by a chancellor.”
Establishes the standard of review for alimony awards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a prior decision by this court, the chancellor reconsidered alimony awards. The wife appealed the chancellor's revised award, which denied h…
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
Following the decision and mandate of this court in Glasser v. Glasser, Fla.App. 1965, 178 So.2d 749, the chancellor reconsidered the award of lump sum and periodic alimony. The appellant-wife has brought this interlocutory appeal, seeking review of the chancellor’s award, wherein in light of the redistribution of the assets of the parties he denied her lump sum alimony and the nominal periodic award which she had originally obtained.
The fixing of the amount of alimony and whether it is to be periodic or a lump sum, is a matter within the discretion to be soundly exercised by a chancellor. See: Rubinow v. Rubinow, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 561; Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671; May v. May, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 110; Smith v. Smith, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 351. We find no error in the chancellor’s failure to award a lump sum as alimony and affirm this portion of his decree on mandate. However, we fail to find any basis in the record to support his disallowance of the nominal periodic award and, therefore, to this extent his decree on the mandate is reversed with directions to reinstate the rights of the wife to periodic alimony, as affixed in the amended final decree in this case dated January 8, 1965.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pross v. Pross, 72 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1954)
- Rubinow v. Rubinow, 40 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1949)
- Rhoda Glasser v. Seymour Glasser, 178 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- MAY v. MAY, 142 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Smith v. Smith, 177 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)