JACK LANDSBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
GRETA LANDSBERG, APPELLEE; GRETA LANDSBERG, APPELLANT, V. JACK LANDSBERG, 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 divorce appeal, both Jack and Greta Landsberg challenged various aspects of the trial court's judgment. The appellate court upheld most of the divorce decree's provisions but reversed the alimony and child support awards, directing the trial court to consolidate multiple expense payments into fixed monthly amounts for tax purposes and administrative efficiency.
The court affirmed the division of property, attorney's fees, costs, and the trial court's refusal to award the husband's interest in the marital home as lump sum alimony. However, the court reversed the alimony and child support awards and remanded for the trial court to consolidate the multiple expense payments into fixed monthly amounts for alimony and separate fixed amounts for each minor child's support.
[1] A trial court's division of stock accounts and stock held by both parties in a divorce is subject to appellate review.
[2] Appellate courts will review awards of attorney's fees and costs in divorce proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 amount the chancellor intended to award in gross was a reasonable amount. However we think, for the benefit of both parties for tax purposes and also, obviously, to conserve the time of court and counsel in the future, that the payments awarded to the wife as alimony should be spelled out in a fixed amount”
Establishes the court's rationale for restructuring the award into fixed periodic payments rather than multiple itemized expenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack and Greta Landsberg were parties to a divorce suit. The trial court divided a stock account and stock holdings held jointly by both parties, awar…
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 Income Tax Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
By these two appeals, both parties to a divorce suit are unhappy. We have considered the several points raised by counsel for the respective parties and find no merit in the points relative to the division of the stock account held in the names of both parties and the stock issued in the names of both parties [Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727; Wilburn v. Wilburn, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 518]; in the amount awarded as attorney’s fees [French v. French, Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 585; Posner v. Posner, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 186]; in the awarding of costs [Mouyois v. Mouyois, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 718; Helsel v. Helsel, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 99; Coggan v. Coggan, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 839]; nor in holding the wife liable for one-half of the income tax as the result of a sale of stock for which she received one-half of the proceeds.
The marital home was held by an estate by the entireties. The trial court refused to award the husband’s one-half interest in this property to the wife as lump sum alimony, and we find no error in this ruling. The trial court did permit the wife to use the premises for a time certain, at the conclusion of which the property was to be sold.
*728Both parties have complained about the award of alimony and support for the minor children. The wife says it is inadequate; the husband says it is excessive. But, both parties do agree that the trial judge should have awarded a sum certain to the wife in lieu of directing that the husband make a multitude of payments in the nature of alimony and/or support, such as mortgage payments, taxes, home maintenance, gas expense, camp expense, medical expense, religious expense, automobile replacement, utility bills, etc.
Examining the record and the final judgment in relation to these items of alimony and support, we believe that the amount the chancellor intended to award in gross was a reasonable amount. However we think, for the benefit of both parties for tax purposes and also, obviously, to conserve the time of court and counsel in the future, that the payments awarded to the wife as alimony should be spelled out in a fixed amount and the payment to be awarded to the wife for support of each minor child should be spelled out in a fixed amount and that, upon the receipt of same, the wife should be required to maintain herself and the children and contribute her one-half to the upkeep and maintenance of the former marital home which becomes theirs as tenants in common.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment of divorce is affirmed in all respects,1 save and except as to the awards in the nature of alimony and support. And, this cause is returned to the trial court with directions to enter an award dividing the gross amount that the husband is required to pay on a periodic basis as to alimony and support for the minor children.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kindred v. Kermit G. Kindred, 284 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Zuidhof v. Zuidhof, Fla.App.1971, 242 So. 2d 739; Weston v. Weston, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 315; Landsberg v. Landsberg, Fla.App.1972, 259 So. 2d 727; Cooper v. Cooper, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 272.…
-
Greta Landsberg v. Landsberg, 280 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. Appellant wife seeks interlocutory review1 of an order entered on a mandate issued by this court based on our decision in Landsberg v. Landsberg, Fla.App.1972, 259 So. 2d 727. We have carefully reviewed the record, briefs, arguments of counsel and the substance of the order on the mandate and have concluded that the trial judge’s order did not conform to the directions therein contained. Accordingly, it is hereby ordere…
-
Landsberg v. Greta Landsberg, 267 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 259 So. 2d 727. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1941)
- Helsel v. Helsel, 138 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Gatto v. Baron Props., Inc., 183 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Coggan v. Coggan, 183 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Mouyois v. Anne Mouyois, 97 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Wilburn v. Wilburn, 143 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- S. M. S. Corp. v. Karamanlakis, 237 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)