Ehrlich v. Ehrlich

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ehrlich v. Ehrlich

537 So. 2d 164, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 176, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 100, 1989 WL 1045

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1191

StatusPublished

This text of 537 So. 2d 164 (Ehrlich v. Ehrlich) 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

Ehrlich v. Ehrlich, 537 So. 2d 164, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 176, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 100, 1989 WL 1045 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a marriage dissolution judgment. Just before trial of the issues, the attorneys announced that an agreement had been effected between the [165]*165parties. At that point the lawyers and the judge attempted to put on the record the substance of the purported agreement. There is a distinct indication from this record that appellant was not in accord with all the terms of the supposed agreement. In particular it is noted that appellant was unwilling to agree to pay alimony to appellee after she remarried. There is no basis in the law for the payment of support alimony after remarriage of the recipient. Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So.2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

The judgment is affirmed in all respects except the support and property awards and dispositions. We remand for trial on those matters.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a marriage dissolution judgment. Just before trial of the issues, the attorneys announced that an agreement had been effected between the [165]*165parties. At that point the lawyers and the judge attempted to put on the record the substance of the purported agreement. There is a distinct indication from this record that appellant was not in accord with all the terms of the supposed agreement. In particular it is noted that appellant was unwilling to agree to pay alimony to appellee after she remarried. There is no basis in the law for the payment of support alimony after remarriage of the recipient. Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So.2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

The judgment is affirmed in all respects except the support and property awards and dispositions. We remand for trial on those matters.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 So. 2d 164, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 176, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 100, 1989 WL 1045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehrlich-v-ehrlich-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack