Hughes v. Hughes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hughes v. Hughes

452 So. 2d 1030, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13851

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1301

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 452 So. 2d 1030 (Hughes v. Hughes) 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

Hughes v. Hughes, 452 So. 2d 1030, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13851 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, contending that the trial court should have awarded permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony. We affirm. We find no abuse of discretion, particularly in light of record evidence that the wife has the capacity for self-support. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla.1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

We note that if the wife is unable to rehabilitate herself she may, before the expiration of the rehabilitation period, petition for an extension of rehabilitative alimony or for conversion to permanent alimony. Lee v. Lee, 309 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). See, Veach v. Veach, 407 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Reid v. Reid, 396 So.2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

HERSEY, and DELL, JJ., concurs. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, contending that the trial court should have awarded permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony. We affirm. We find no abuse of discretion, particularly in light of record evidence that the wife has the capacity for self-support. Kuvin v. Kuvin, 442 So.2d 203 (Fla.1983); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

We note that if the wife is unable to rehabilitate herself she may, before the expiration of the rehabilitation period, petition for an extension of rehabilitative alimony or for conversion to permanent alimony. Lee v. Lee, 309 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). See, Veach v. Veach, 407 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Reid v. Reid, 396 So.2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

HERSEY, and DELL, JJ., concurs. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 So. 2d 1030, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-hughes-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack