THOMAS G. FOXX, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCES G. FOXX, 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 the trial court erred in awarding lump sum alimony when no such claim was made and the circumstances did not support it.
The husband appealed a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage action where the wife was awarded the home and household furnishings as partial lum…
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
MILLS, Judge.
Mr. Foxx appeals from a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage action contending the trial court erred in awarding Mrs. Foxx the home and the household furnishings of the parties as partial lump sum alimony. We agree and reverse.
Mrs. Foxx did not allege a claim for lump sum alimony in her petition or the amendments thereto. There being no claim for lump sum alimony, the court had no authority to award Mrs. Foxx lump sum alimony. The judgment recites that the parties agreed in their testimony that Mrs. Foxx be awarded the household furnishings. This is incorrect and is unsupported by the record. In fact, the record furnished us clearly shows that no such agreement was made by the parties.
The record reflects that the parties have no children, they are both healthy, employed and occupy similar financial positions except Mrs. Foxx earns slightly more weekly than Mr. Foxx. Under these circumstances, the record does not support an award of lump sum alimony. Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1976).
We reverse that part of the final judgment awarding Mrs. Foxx the home and the household furnishings and remand this case to the trial court for the entry of a judgment consistent with the views expressed above.
BOYER, Acting C. J., concurs.
BOOTH, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dov Gelkop v. Gelkop, 384 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…es, renders the subsequent final judgment void for lack of proper due process notice to the husband even assuming the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the parties. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 363 So. 2d 393, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Foxx v. Foxx, 357 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Beard v. Beard, 356 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Rankin v. Rankin, 258 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Coscia v. Coscia, 262 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).3 “Even though the [sjtate has jurisdiction over the parties and even…
-
Caidin v. Caidin, 367 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…lazo, 318 So. 2d 164 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Appellant argues the court was without authority to award alimony in lump sum because the wife, in her petition for dissolution of marriage, did not “allege a claim for lump sum alimony,” citing Foxx v. Foxx, 357 So. 2d 754 (Fla.1st DCA 1978), in which the court so stated. Here the wife’s petition alleged a claim for temporary and permanent alimony. It is true that the wife in her petition did not undertake to tell the court how to order the payment of such alimony as…
-
Nalley v. Nalley, 406 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…isitation with the younger children. Although we find the trial court was eminently fair to both parties in his award of alimony, the award of the marital home as lump sum alimony must be reversed for failure to plead for such relief. Foxx v. Foxx, 357 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Dobbins v. Dobbins, 359 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Appellant points out in his brief that the relief requested by the wife was limited to exclusive use and occupancy of the marital home and furnishings for the benefit of the…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cummings v. Cummings, 330 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1976)