EDWARD ANTHONY HACKNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANNE HACKNEY, 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.
The court held that awarding jointly owned stock as lump sum alimony was an abuse of discretion when the wife disclaimed need for alimony.
The wife requested alimony in her dissolution petition but later testified she did not require it, only child support. The trial court nonetheless awa…
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
WALDEN, Chief Judge.
Husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution. We reverse the judgment insofar as it awarded the husband’s interest in jointly owned stock to the wife as lump sum alimony. We affirm the remainder of the judgment as being a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.
The wife requested alimony in her petition for dissolution, but thereafter testified plainly that she did not require any alimony, but would need child support for the three minor children. The trial court nonetheless made, in addition to child support, the lump sum alimony award.
The wife’s knowledgeable disclaimer, when combined with the evidence and accompanying awards, served to make this particular lump sum alimony award an abuse of discretion. See Posner v. Posner, 257 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1972); Posner v. Posner, 233 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1970); Black v. Black, 247 So. 2d 775 (3d DCA Fla.1971); Costa v. Costa, 245 So. 2d 123 (2d DCA Fla.1971).
In the present instance the wife’s statement that she did not need alimony was unrebutted by testimony or evidence. Furthermore, the husband may have been mislead. He naturally did not produce any positive evidence that she did not need alimony, as she had disclaimed any need. In light of these facts: (1) there was no evidence presented by the wife of need, (2) the wife disclaimed any need for alimony, and (3) it was not patently clear she was in need of alimony, the lump sum alimony award was erroneous. White v. White, 314 So. 2d 187 (4th DCA Fla.1975); Roberts v. Roberts, 283 So. 2d 396 (1st DCA Fla.1973). We reverse and remand for áction not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN, J., and REASBECK, JAMES M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruse v. Ruse, 351 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…y. Ms. Ruse’s testimony that she did not need alimony was unrebutted. At the time of the final hearing, Ms. Ruse was earning $12,000.00 a year and Mr. Ruse was earning less than $5,000.00 a year. I would reverse on authority of Hackney v. Hackney, 324 So. 2d 179 (Fla.4th DCA 1975).…
Authorities Cited
- Posner v. Sari Posner, 233 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1970)
- Sari Posner v. Posner, 257 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1972)
- Howard Banks v. Simpson, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Roberts v. Nona Lee Roberts, 283 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. Transit Auth. v. McArthur Edwards, 247 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- White v. Francys S. White, 314 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Costa v. Costa, 245 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)