RUSSELL LAWRENCE YANKOW, APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN ELIZABETH YANKOW, 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.
Husband's appeal of alimony award affirmed where trial court ordered $5,000 lump-sum alimony upon inheritance receipt plus $50 weekly payments, finding no abuse of discretion under the wife's need and husband's ability to pay standard.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding lump-sum alimony conditioned on inheritance receipt plus interim weekly payments when the award is supported by evidence of the wife's need and the husband's ability to pay.
[1] Alimony awards conditioned on receipt of future inheritance are permissible when supported by evidence of the wife's need and the husband's ability to pay, and trial cour…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband appealed a dissolution judgment requiring him to pay his wife $5,000 lump-sum alimony when he receives an approximately $45,000 inheritance …
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 Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution in which he was ordered to pay the wife $5,000 lump-sum alimony when he receives his inheritance of approximately $45,000 from his late father’s estate. The judgment further provided the husband is to pay the wife $50 per week until the estate is settled, at which time he must pay the balance still owing on the lump-sum award. Keeping in mind that the standard to be applied here is the wife’s need and the husband’s ability to pay, we find that the record demonstrates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its award. Therefore we affirm. Sisson v. Sisson, 336 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1976).
We note that the trial court has reserved jurisdiction to review the award after a period of six months from the date of final judgment. Though the record reveals the husband has sufficient income and savings to allow him to make the $50-per-week payments in the near future, this obligation may become burdensome if the estate does not close expeditiously. We are confident that upon proper petition the trial judge will make an adjustment of the requirement for weekly payments if the husband demonstrates an inability to make them.
Affirmed.
BOARDMAN, C. J, and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maunell Stewart Suarez v. Suarez, 373 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…of the order except for the denial of attorney’s fees. While we might have reached a different result from the court on the question of alimony, we do not think that it abused its discretion. Hence we will not disturb its decision. Yankow v. Yankow, 357 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Rutenberg v. Rutenberg, 334 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). As to the question of attorney’s fees, we believe that it was an abuse of the court’s discretion not to award them to the wife. The purpose of awarding attorney’s fees i…
-
Bard v. Bard, 528 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…DCA 1987); Gelman v. Gelman, 512 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gardner v. Gardner, 452 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Urban v. Urban, 424 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Yan [*1000] kow v. Yankow, 357 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).…
Authorities Cited
- Sisson v. Sisson, 336 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1976)