Hays v. Hays

384 So. 2d 56, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16338
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 4, 1980·No. No. 79-1583·Published

Opinion

LETTS, Chief Judge.

The appellant/husband seeks review of a portion of the final judgment which ordered the sale of the marital domicile and the award of lump sum alimony to the ap-pellee/wife.

[57] Neither party prayed for partition of the property nor alleged the need for partition. Since the appellee/wife concedes that the trial court erred in ordering partition, this portion of the decree must be reversed. Kitchen v. Kitchen, 162 So.2d 539 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); Helsel v. Helsel, 138 So.2d 99 (Fla.3d DCA 1962); DiMartino v. DiMarti-no, 360 So.2d 1133 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).

As to the award of lump sum alimony to the appellee/wife, we affirm the trial court’s decision upon the authority of Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), Case No. 54,124, Opinion issued March 27, 1980.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.

ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

Hays v. Hays, 384 So. 2d 56, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16338 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

384 So. 2d 56 (Hays v. Hays) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kitchens v. Kitchens
162 So. 2d 539 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Canakaris v. Canakaris
382 So. 2d 1197 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
Helsel v. Helsel
138 So. 2d 99 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Di Martino v. Di Martino
360 So. 2d 1133 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)