WILLIAM MARKHAM, AS BROWARD COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, PETITIONER,

v.

ESCOM ENTERPRISES, INC., AND JOSEPH L. ANTONUCCI, RESPONDENTS

Citator

Cited By

• Frechter v. Frechter, 548 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
  …r, 398 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), citing Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA) (judgment dissolving marriage should specify whether husband’s obligation to pay mortgage payments is alimony, child support or otherwise), cert. denied, 324 So. 2d 87 (Fla.1975). Further, the final judgment as it affects Mrs. Frechter’s use of the town house should be modified to excise the restriction precluding her exclusive use and occupancy of the town house in the event that she cohabits with a man on the p…
• Eberly v. Eberly, 344 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
  …st DCA 1961); Harloff v. Harloff, 279 So. 2d 91 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1973); Becker v. King, supra; Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), cert. den., 324 So. 2d 87 (Fla.1975). The earlier cases sustained such orders as proper to provide security for child support payments otherwise ordered, even though those orders appeared to make the children absolute beneficiaries of the policies, subject to change only by…
• Zediker v. Zediker, 398 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
  …l further pay the utilities consumed by Wife and the parties’ children at the former marital residence up to but not exceeding the sum of $160.00 per month. Appellant argues that Moore v. Moore, 311 So. 2d 152, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 324 So. 2d 87 (Fla.1975), requires clarification of this portion of the order below. The Moore case, supra, holds that the trial court erred in failing to specify whether the husband’s obligation to pay mortgage payments was alimony or child support. The court no…

Authorities Cited

• Escom Enters., Inc. v. Markham, 311 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)