DORES R. FISHMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK FISHMAN, 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.
Dores Fishman appealed a divorce decree that awarded her $48,000 in lump sum alimony payable at $800 monthly. The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's award, finding no abuse of discretion in the amount or nature of the alimony, and rejected her request on rehearing to preserve the chancellor's right to modify the award.
The court affirmed the alimony award, finding no abuse of discretion in the amount or nature of the lump sum alimony. The court also affirmed the refusal to retain jurisdiction for future modification, as this was within the chancellor's sound judicial discretion.
[1] The determination of whether to award alimony and the amount thereof rests within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court.
[2] A trial court's alimony award will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The question of whether alimony shall be awarded, and, if so, how much shall be awarded rest within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor, and his determination will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for alimony awards—an abuse of discretion standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDores Fishman sought a divorce from her husband Jack Fishman. The trial court granted the divorce and awarded the wife $48,000 as lump sum alimony pay…
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 Sound Judicial Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Dores Fishman was the plaintiff below; she sought a divorce from her husband Jack Fishman, defendant below and appellee here. The trial court, inter alia, granted the wife a divorce and awarded her $48,000.00 as lump sum alimony, payable in monthly installments of $800.00. See § 61.08, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
Appellant wife claims that error was committed as to the amount and nature of the alimony award and in the refusal of the court to rule on a certain debt allegedly owing from the husband to the wife. We find no abuse of discretion as to the amount of the award, and affirm the order as entered; we find no merit in the second point.
As to her first point, we do not detail all the testimony presented, as it was conflicting as to the needs of the wife, her independent assets and income, and the husband’s ability to pay. While certain facts were uncontested, nevertheless the inferences to be drawn therefrom and the financial impact upon the parties of such uncontested facts were disputed.
The question of whether alimony shall be awarded, and, if so, how much shall be awarded rest within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor, and his determination will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. The decision of the chancellor comes to this court with a presumption of correctness, and the appellant’s burden is to establish that the decree was clearly erroneous. French v. French, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 584, 585; Beaty v. Beaty, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 54, 57. The allowance of alimony was within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor, and his rulings on the matter are supported by the evidence. The burden on the appellant to show an abuse of discretion in that matter was not met. French v. French, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 584, 585; Tomaino v. Martz, Fla.App.1965, 170 So.2d 468, 469; Ortiz v. Ortiz, Fla. App.1968, 211 So.2d 243; and Frischkorn v. Frischkorn, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 380. See generally § 61.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
*259Accordingly, the portion of the decree establishing the lump sum alimony in the amount of $48,000.00 is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ON REHEARING
Appellant has petitioned for a rehearing seeking to have the court amend its opinion so as to reserve to the chancellor the right, upon a showing under Section 65.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., to modify the alimony awarded to the wife by providing for periodic payments in the future, if necessary.
We have carefully considered appellant’s petition in the light of the record showing the short duration of the marriage, the independent assets of the wife and the husband’s ability to pay, and have concluded that the petition should be denied. The award of lump sum alimony and the refusal to retain jurisdiction to modify it upon a change in circumstances was within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor and no abuse of such discretion appears.
Accordingly the petition for re-hearing is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Storer v. Storer, 353 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ld survive the death of either party. Again, we think not. Lump sum alimony awards have long been upheld in Florida courts. Yandell v. Yandell, supra; Pross v. Pross, supra; Zohlman v. Zohlman, 235 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Fishman v. Fishman, 245 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Langston v. Langston, 257 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). By definition, an award of lump sum alimony vests in the recipient at the time of the final decree, and is not subject to defeasance or modification. Latta v. Latta, 135 So…
-
Mufson v. Mufson, 245 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…arly erroneous. The chancel [*112] lor’s decision, which allowed alimony and set the child support at about $400.00 per month, with other provisions for their education, is supported by the evidence. See generally, Fishman v. Fishman, Fla.App. 1971, 245 So. 2d 258. We have considered all of appellant’s points on appeal and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, the judgments appealed are affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Baker v. Baker, 299 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…hat the court abused his discretion by entry of the alimony awards. E. g., Linares v. Linares, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 63; Maroun v. Maroun, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 572; King v. King, Fla.App.1973, 271 So. 2d 159; Fishman v. Fishman, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 258. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial judge’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. The findings include a full description of the husband’s financial situation. Dr. Baker is one of 63 doctors involved in a partn…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ortiz v. Ortiz, 211 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Beaty v. Beaty, 177 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Frischkorn v. Thomasine G. Frischkorn, 223 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- MacKey v. State, 223 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- French v. French, 146 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Miles Drawdy v. Arlington Lumber Co., Inc., 170 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Tomaino v. Martz, 170 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)