JOSEPH H. BLUME, APPELLANT,
v.
SOPHIA BLUME, 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 appellate court affirmed a divorce decree, upholding the trial court's award of both lump sum and periodic alimony to the wife. The court found no legal error in the alimony award, relying on prior precedent.
No, the trial court did not err in awarding both lump sum and periodic alimony payments to the wife.
“The primary thrust of appellant's contention on appeal is the assertion that the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding the appellee-wife a lump sum award and also periodic payments of alimony.”
This quote states the main legal argument presented by the appellant on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband appealed a final divorce decree, arguing that the trial court erred by awarding the wife both a lump sum and periodic alimony payments. Th…
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
The appellant-plaintiff, Joseph H. Blume, appeals from a final decree of divorce granted in favor of the appellee-defendant and counterclaimant, Sophia Blume.
The primary thrust of appellant’s contention on appeal is the assertion that the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding the appellee-wife a lump sum award and also periodic payments of alimony. We affirm on the authority of Harless v. Harless, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 728.
The remaining points on appeal have been considered and we find them to be without merit. See Bennett v. Bennett, Fla.App. 1962, 146 So.2d 588; Picchi v. Picchi, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 627; Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 183; Vaughn v. Stewart, 1939, 140 Fla. 88, 191 So. 693.
Affirmed.
CROSS and REED, JJ., and OVER-STREET, MURRAY W., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bennett v. Lysle A. Bennett, 146 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Lynch v. Coppola, 129 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Picchi v. Picchi, 100 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1958)
- Vaughn v. Ila M. Stewart, 140 Fla. 88 (Fla. 1939)
- Zaye C. Harless v. Harless, 185 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)