Gibson v. Gibson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gibson v. Gibson

631 So. 2d 1146, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1247, 1994 WL 51825

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gibson v. Gibson. Read the opinion of the Court — 596 So. 2d 1223 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 22, 1994·No. No. 93-579·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Desmond Gibson appeals the final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. We think the obvious intent of the judgment is that the former wife, Doris C. Gibson, have responsibility for payment of the mortgage on the marital home which has been transferred to her as part of the divorce decree. With that clarification, we affirm the final judgment. Given the length of the marriage, the relative earning power of the parties, and the parties’ current financial circumstances, the trial court had the discretion to make an award of lump sum alimony to the wife, instead of awarding permanent periodic alimony. We have carefully considered the husband’s request for a remand for further factual findings, but in our view further proceedings will not change the ultimate result. As the decree is within the bounds of permissible discretion, see Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), the judgment is affirmed as clarified.

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

PER CURIAM.

Desmond Gibson appeals the final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. We think the obvious intent of the judgment is that the former wife, Doris C. Gibson, have responsibility for payment of the mortgage on the marital home which has been transferred to her as part of the divorce decree. With that clarification, we affirm the final judgment. Given the length of the marriage, the relative earning power of the parties, and the parties’ current financial circumstances, the trial court had the discretion to make an award of lump sum alimony to the wife, instead of awarding permanent periodic alimony. We have carefully considered the husband’s request for a remand for further factual findings, but in our view further proceedings will not change the ultimate result. As the decree is within the bounds of permissible discretion, see Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), the judgment is affirmed as clarified.

Gibson v. Gibson, 631 So. 2d 1146, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1247, 1994 WL 51825 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

631 So. 2d 1146 (Gibson v. Gibson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related