Brane v. Brane

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brane v. Brane

319 So. 2d 620, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15352

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 24, 1975

DocketNo. 75-746

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 319 So. 2d 620 (Brane v. Brane) 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

Brane v. Brane, 319 So. 2d 620, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15352 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIMES, Judge.

The court below has judiciously unraveled this complex post-dissolution proceeding. However, the determination of the amount of appellant’s alimony obligation for the 1974-75 accounting period appears to have been based upon some erroneous computations. In order to determine the [621]*621amount of alimony payments required by the property settlement formula, the court projected appellant’s income for the first one-third of the accounting period. In making these calculations .it now appears that the court should have used $3,114.78 in lieu of $7,114.78 for cash draws and $680 in lieu of $2,040 for the auto lease payments. Had the court used these figures, appellant’s alimony obligation for the 1974-75 accounting period would have been $314.34 per month rather than $559.78 per month. The order is hereby amended to reflect this change, and the arrearage is reduced to that extent.

The order is affirmed as amended.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.

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

GRIMES, Judge.

The court below has judiciously unraveled this complex post-dissolution proceeding. However, the determination of the amount of appellant’s alimony obligation for the 1974-75 accounting period appears to have been based upon some erroneous computations. In order to determine the [621]*621amount of alimony payments required by the property settlement formula, the court projected appellant’s income for the first one-third of the accounting period. In making these calculations .it now appears that the court should have used $3,114.78 in lieu of $7,114.78 for cash draws and $680 in lieu of $2,040 for the auto lease payments. Had the court used these figures, appellant’s alimony obligation for the 1974-75 accounting period would have been $314.34 per month rather than $559.78 per month. The order is hereby amended to reflect this change, and the arrearage is reduced to that extent.

The order is affirmed as amended.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

319 So. 2d 620, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 15352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brane-v-brane-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack