Connor v. Connor

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Connor v. Connor

372 So. 2d 130, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14855

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 6, 1979

DocketNo. 78-1093

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 372 So. 2d 130 (Connor v. Connor) 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

Connor v. Connor, 372 So. 2d 130, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14855 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the husband from a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his request for alimony and in awarding the wife lump sum alimony in the form of the husband’s one-half interest in the marital domicile. We reverse the final judgment insofar as it denied alimony to the husband and granted alimony to the wife. We find that the award of the husband’s interest in the mari[131]*131tal domicile was improper under Gesford v. Gesford, 337 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We further reverse the denial of the husband’s prayer for alimony. It is clear from the record appellant is not able to support himself in that he is permanently and totally disabled. The husband’s claim for alimony meets the criteria set out in McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So.2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and should have been granted. Therefore, the grant of alimony to the appellee/wife and the denial of alimony to the appellant/husband are reversed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. The judgment is affirmed other than as indicated herein.

REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and BERANEK, JJ., concur. CROSS, J., concurs only in conclusion.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the husband from a final judgment in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his request for alimony and in awarding the wife lump sum alimony in the form of the husband’s one-half interest in the marital domicile. We reverse the final judgment insofar as it denied alimony to the husband and granted alimony to the wife. We find that the award of the husband’s interest in the mari[131]*131tal domicile was improper under Gesford v. Gesford, 337 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We further reverse the denial of the husband’s prayer for alimony. It is clear from the record appellant is not able to support himself in that he is permanently and totally disabled. The husband’s claim for alimony meets the criteria set out in McAllister v. McAllister, 345 So.2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and should have been granted. Therefore, the grant of alimony to the appellee/wife and the denial of alimony to the appellant/husband are reversed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. The judgment is affirmed other than as indicated herein.

REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and BERANEK, JJ., concur. CROSS, J., concurs only in conclusion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 So. 2d 130, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connor-v-connor-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack