Blankenship v. Blankenship

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blankenship v. Blankenship

673 So. 2d 918, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4752, 1996 WL 239292

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1996

DocketNo. 95-04628

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 673 So. 2d 918 (Blankenship v. Blankenship) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blankenship v. Blankenship, 673 So. 2d 918, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4752, 1996 WL 239292 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The husband, Reginald Blankenship, appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order which awarded the wife, Charlotte Blankenship, temporary alimony. We reverse.

Pursuant to the wife’s motion for temporary relief, the trial court found that the wife had a need for temporary alimony and that the husband had the ability to pay the same. The trial court ordered that the husband pay the wife $2000 per month as temporary alimony and that the husband continue to pay the mortgage payments due on the former marital home and certain other obligations of the wife. We, however, find that the temporary award exceeds the husband’s ability to pay and, therefore, constitutes an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. See Barclay v. Barclay, 554 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Accordingly, we reverse the temporary order and remand with instructions to redetermine the award after further evidentiary proceedings.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The husband, Reginald Blankenship, appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order which awarded the wife, Charlotte Blankenship, temporary alimony. We reverse.

Pursuant to the wife’s motion for temporary relief, the trial court found that the wife had a need for temporary alimony and that the husband had the ability to pay the same. The trial court ordered that the husband pay the wife $2000 per month as temporary alimony and that the husband continue to pay the mortgage payments due on the former marital home and certain other obligations of the wife. We, however, find that the temporary award exceeds the husband’s ability to pay and, therefore, constitutes an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. See Barclay v. Barclay, 554 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Accordingly, we reverse the temporary order and remand with instructions to redetermine the award after further evidentiary proceedings.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 So. 2d 918, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4752, 1996 WL 239292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blankenship-v-blankenship-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack