Glasser v. Glasser

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glasser v. Glasser

190 So. 2d 788, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4950

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 11, 1966

DocketNo. 66-380

StatusPublished

This text of 190 So. 2d 788 (Glasser v. Glasser) 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

Glasser v. Glasser, 190 So. 2d 788, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4950 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following the decision and mandate of this court in Glasser v. Glasser, Fla.App. 1965, 178 So.2d 749, the chancellor reconsidered the award of lump sum and periodic alimony. The appellant-wife has brought this interlocutory appeal, seeking review of the chancellor’s award, wherein in light of the redistribution of the assets of the parties he denied her lump sum alimony and the nominal periodic award which she had originally obtained.

The fixing of the amount of alimony and whether it is to be periodic or a lump sum, is a matter within the discretion to be soundly exercised by a chancellor. See: Rubinow v. Rubinow, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 561; Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671; May v. May, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 110; Smith v. Smith, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 351. We find no error in the chancellor’s failure to award a lump sum as alimony and affirm this portion of his decree on mandate. However, we fail to find any basis in the record to support his disallowance of the nominal periodic award and, therefore, to this extent his decree on the mandate is reversed with directions to reinstate the rights of the wife to periodic alimony, as affixed in the amended final decree in this case dated January 8, 1965.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following the decision and mandate of this court in Glasser v. Glasser, Fla.App. 1965, 178 So.2d 749, the chancellor reconsidered the award of lump sum and periodic alimony. The appellant-wife has brought this interlocutory appeal, seeking review of the chancellor’s award, wherein in light of the redistribution of the assets of the parties he denied her lump sum alimony and the nominal periodic award which she had originally obtained.

The fixing of the amount of alimony and whether it is to be periodic or a lump sum, is a matter within the discretion to be soundly exercised by a chancellor. See: Rubinow v. Rubinow, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 561; Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671; May v. May, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 110; Smith v. Smith, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 351. We find no error in the chancellor’s failure to award a lump sum as alimony and affirm this portion of his decree on mandate. However, we fail to find any basis in the record to support his disallowance of the nominal periodic award and, therefore, to this extent his decree on the mandate is reversed with directions to reinstate the rights of the wife to periodic alimony, as affixed in the amended final decree in this case dated January 8, 1965.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 So. 2d 788, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glasser-v-glasser-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack