JAMES TAYLOR STOUTAMIRE, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNA MAE STOUTAMIRE, A/K/A ANN M. STOUTAMIRE, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1975-09-23
No. W-514
McCORD, Acting C. J., and WILLIS, BEN C., Associate Judge, concur., MILLS, J., dissents.
321 So. 2d 599 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1975) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We have considered the record, briefs and oral argument of counsel and find no error in the trial court’s award to appellee of lump sum alimony consisting of residential property and also which included the requirement that appellant retire the mortgage indebtedness thereon. We also find no error in the trial court’s award to appellee of a special equity in other real property of appellant resulting from improvements made thereon during the thirty-six year marriage of the parties.

McCORD, Acting C. J., and WILLIS, BEN C., Associate Judge, concur. MILLS, J., dissents.

Dissent
MILLS, Judge

MILLS, Judge

(dissenting).

I would reverse the trial court’s award of lump sum alimony and special equity to appellee. In my opinion, appellee failed to prove the need for lump sum alimony, failed to prove the ability of appellant to pay lump sum alimony, and failed to prove a special equity.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Cyphers v. Cyphers, 373 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
    …has the ability to provide it. Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1976). The ordered payment of the indebtedness on the automobile was also proper. Nicholson v. Nicholson, 372 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Accord, Stoutamire v. Stoutamire, 321 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). We reject the further argument of the husband that, in any event, the trial judge could not award the automobile to the wife as lump sum alimony because her counterclaim did not contain a specific prayer for such relief. We bel…
  • Shapiro v. Shapiro, 484 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
    …n from $10,000 to $9,842.69 since this appears to be merely a correction of an amount which was approximated at the original hearing. The court ened, howe.er, in deleting the $3,000 contribution toward capital improvements. Stoutamire v. Stoutamire, 321 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1976) and Forehand v. Forehand, 363 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Accordingly, we remand the matter a second time tor the court to calculate the Wife’s special equity in the home, according t…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw