Ernest v. Ernest

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ernest v. Ernest

433 So. 2d 1382, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20854

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 14, 1983

DocketNo. 81-1628

StatusPublished

This text of 433 So. 2d 1382 (Ernest v. Ernest) 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

Ernest v. Ernest, 433 So. 2d 1382, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20854 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

BROWNLEE, JACKSON 0., Associate Judge.

This is a marriage of approximately eleven and a half years with no children and the trial court ordered the Wife exclusive possession of the jointly owned condominium for five years, an automobile and rehabilitative alimony in the sum of $150.00 a month. At the conclusion of five years in the event the Wife is not remarried, the Court then awards permanent alimony in the sum of $350.00 per month.

If the Wife is entitled to permanent alimony, she should be granted it from day one and not at the end of five years, or the Court could simply grant rehabilitative alimony and then upon a proper showing, convert it to permanent alimony at a later time. Saviteer v. McAdoo, 310 So.2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Church v. Church, 338 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Segal v. Segal, 353 So.2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Additionally, appellant questions the trial court’s authority to award possession of jointly owned property when there are no children involved. Lee v. Lee, 309 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). From the record and the Final Judgment, we are unable to tell what the trial judge had in mind at the time of awarding the wife possession of jointly owned property.

While trial courts have considerable latitude and discretion relative to the many matters which they must decide in a domestic trial, they are not without limitation. However, in order to be properly reviewed, it is necessary for the appellate court to know into what category each award falls. The property and alimony portions of the judgment are reversed, the other portions of the judgment are affirmed and this cause is remanded for a judgment in compliance with this opinion. Should the court deem it necessary to hold further evidentia-ry hearings then he should do so. Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So.2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.

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

BROWNLEE, JACKSON 0., Associate Judge.

This is a marriage of approximately eleven and a half years with no children and the trial court ordered the Wife exclusive possession of the jointly owned condominium for five years, an automobile and rehabilitative alimony in the sum of $150.00 a month. At the conclusion of five years in the event the Wife is not remarried, the Court then awards permanent alimony in the sum of $350.00 per month.

If the Wife is entitled to permanent alimony, she should be granted it from day one and not at the end of five years, or the Court could simply grant rehabilitative alimony and then upon a proper showing, convert it to permanent alimony at a later time. Saviteer v. McAdoo, 310 So.2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Church v. Church, 338 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Segal v. Segal, 353 So.2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Additionally, appellant questions the trial court’s authority to award possession of jointly owned property when there are no children involved. Lee v. Lee, 309 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). From the record and the Final Judgment, we are unable to tell what the trial judge had in mind at the time of awarding the wife possession of jointly owned property.

While trial courts have considerable latitude and discretion relative to the many matters which they must decide in a domestic trial, they are not without limitation. However, in order to be properly reviewed, it is necessary for the appellate court to know into what category each award falls. The property and alimony portions of the judgment are reversed, the other portions of the judgment are affirmed and this cause is remanded for a judgment in compliance with this opinion. Should the court deem it necessary to hold further evidentia-ry hearings then he should do so. Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So.2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 So. 2d 1382, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-v-ernest-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack