Dolfi v. Dolfi

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dolfi v. Dolfi

667 So. 2d 409, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 122, 1996 WL 10941

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 1996

DocketNo. 94-1946

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 667 So. 2d 409 (Dolfi v. Dolfi) 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

Dolfi v. Dolfi, 667 So. 2d 409, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 122, 1996 WL 10941 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ANTOON, Judge.

Roveri Dolfi files this appeal seeking relief from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in equitably distributing the assets which the parties acquired during the marriage, and in awarding Sandra Dolfi $100 per month permanent periodic alimony. Because the trial court failed to include findings of fact upon which it based the alimony award, and because the alimony award is inconsistent with the court’s finding that Roveri does not have the present ability to pay alimony, we reverse and remand in order for the trial court to reconsider the alimony award in light of section 61.08, Florida Statutes (1993). See Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also O’Neal v. O’Neal, 407 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In all other respects, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage is affirmed.

AFFIRMED; REVERSED; REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

ANTOON, Judge.

Roveri Dolfi files this appeal seeking relief from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in equitably distributing the assets which the parties acquired during the marriage, and in awarding Sandra Dolfi $100 per month permanent periodic alimony. Because the trial court failed to include findings of fact upon which it based the alimony award, and because the alimony award is inconsistent with the court’s finding that Roveri does not have the present ability to pay alimony, we reverse and remand in order for the trial court to reconsider the alimony award in light of section 61.08, Florida Statutes (1993). See Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also O’Neal v. O’Neal, 407 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In all other respects, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage is affirmed.

AFFIRMED; REVERSED; REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 So. 2d 409, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 122, 1996 WL 10941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dolfi-v-dolfi-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack