IRIS MASSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR MASSEY, 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 interlocutory appeal of a divorce decree remand order, the Florida District Court of Appeal addresses three disputes concerning the allocation and retroactivity of increased alimony and the validity of a lump-sum alimony award for the family home. The court partially affirms and partially reverses the trial court's mandate order.
The court held that (1) allocating the entire increase to alimony was proper within the trial court's discretion; (2) the increase should have been made retroactive to the date of the original decree (July 15, 1966) because the amended decree takes the place of the reversed portion; and (3) the award of the family home as lump-sum alimony was not improper and should not have been revoked, as it was supported by the pleadings and relevant to demonstrating the inadequacy of the original alimony award.
“It is settled that awards of alimony and amounts thereof are within the discretion of the chancellor.”
Establishes the legal standard that alimony awards rest within the trial court's discretion, supporting the court's affirmance of the allocation decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIris Massey was the plaintiff in a divorce action against Arthur Massey. The appellate court had previously reversed the original alimony award as ina…
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 Lump Sum Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal whereby appellant, Iris Massey, who was the plaintiff in the original action for divorce, seeks review of an order on mandate entered by the circuit court. This court’s opinion on the appeal of the final decree of divorce is reported in Massey v. Massey, Fla.App.1968, 205 So.2d 1.
Appellant presents three points upon which she urges reversal of certain portions of the order on the mandate. Initially, appellant argues that the lower court erred in allocating entirely to alimony the increase in payments by the husband ordered by this court. Appellant contends that the increase should have been apportioned between alimony and child support. We do not agree. It is settled that awards *261of alimony and amounts thereof are within the discretion of the chancellor. Milander v. Milander, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 876. The record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel are devoid of any showing of abuse of that discretion by the chancellor upon remand. There is no error in allocating the entire increase in payments to alimony.
Secondly, appellant claims error in that the ordered increase was not made retroactive to take effect upon the date of the initial decree of divorce. We find merit in this contention. Our opinion at 205 So.2d 1, 2, makes it clear that, under the evidence presented, the original award of periodic alimony was so inadequate as to constitute an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion. Upon that basis, that portion of the divorce decree was reversed. The amended decree takes the place of that portion of the original decree so reversed, and must be made to take effect as of the date of the original award. The increase, then, should have been made retroactive to the date of the original decree, viz., July 15, 1966.
Finally, it is urged by appellant that the chancellor erred in deleting paragraph five of the original decree awarding the family home to the wife as lump sum alimony. In support of this contention, appellant argues that the provision in the divorce decree awarding lump sum alimony was not before this court upon appeal, and that, therefore, the chancellor was without jurisdiction upon remand to amend that portion of the decree which was affirmed. In fairness to the chancellor, we point out that the opinion in 205 So.2d 1, is susceptible to the interpretation placed upon it by him. However, we made mention of the fact that the award transferred to the wife all obligations of maintaining the homestead only to bear witness to the conclusion that the award of periodic alimony was inadequate to cope with such a burden. As there exists in the pleadings ample ground for the award of the home as lump sum alimony, such award was not improper. Therefore, that portion of the order on mandate revoking such award is reversed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weiner v. Al Weiner, 386 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…amount she was accustomed to spending during her married life. See McDonald v. McDonald, 368 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1979). We hold that appellant is entitled to $1,200 per week, as of the date of the dissolution decree, October 31, 1978. Massey v. Massey, 213 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Appellant further challenges the partition of the parties’ undivided interests in a residential lot. We note initially that a court is without authority, incident to dissolution proceedings, to order ex parte the sale of jointl…
Authorities Cited
- Massey v. Massey, 205 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Milander v. Milander, 208 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)