Curry v. Curry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Curry v. Curry

572 So. 2d 557, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9610, 1990 WL 211480

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 21, 1990

DocketNo. 90-01019

StatusPublished

This text of 572 So. 2d 557 (Curry v. Curry) 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

Curry v. Curry, 572 So. 2d 557, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9610, 1990 WL 211480 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal by a former wife from the final judgment in this dissolution of marriage case we affirm.

We affirm the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over the disposition of the husband’s termination benefits which are to be payable by his employer when his employment is terminated. We do not conclude that there was an abuse of discretion in that regard. The court’s finding that payment to the husband of those benefits “is an uncertain, speculative occurrence” is [558]*558supported by the evidence which also shows uncertainty in the amount of those benefits when and if they become payable. Cf. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265, 269 (Fla.1986).

We affirm the award of permanent alimony and the portion of the final judgment providing that the wife shall bear her own attorney’s fees. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202-03 (Fla.1980).

Affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal by a former wife from the final judgment in this dissolution of marriage case we affirm.

We affirm the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over the disposition of the husband’s termination benefits which are to be payable by his employer when his employment is terminated. We do not conclude that there was an abuse of discretion in that regard. The court’s finding that payment to the husband of those benefits “is an uncertain, speculative occurrence” is [558]*558supported by the evidence which also shows uncertainty in the amount of those benefits when and if they become payable. Cf. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So.2d 265, 269 (Fla.1986).

We affirm the award of permanent alimony and the portion of the final judgment providing that the wife shall bear her own attorney’s fees. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1202-03 (Fla.1980).

Affirmed.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 So. 2d 557, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9610, 1990 WL 211480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-curry-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack