Leonard v. Leonard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Leonard v. Leonard

408 So. 2d 1091, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19103

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 1982

DocketNos. 78-608, 78-954, 78-1424 and 78-2772

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 408 So. 2d 1091 (Leonard v. Leonard) 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

Leonard v. Leonard, 408 So. 2d 1091, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19103 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has filed a motion to stay the issuance of our mandate pending disposition of his application for certiorari in the Supreme Court. In his motion the appellant contends that he is entitled to deduct the temporary alimony payments he made pending appeal from the amount of lump sum alimony he was originally ordered to pay the appellee now that the lump sum alimony award has been affirmed. He further asserts that our issuance of mandate will preclude him from receiving meaningful review of that issue in the Supreme Court. Although in this appeal the husband challenged the authority of the trial court to award the temporary alimony, and by our affirmance we have obviously rejected such contention, 405 So.2d 732, we are of the view that the issue as to whether the husband would be entitled to credit has not yet been resolved by an appropriate order of the trial court. The motion for stay of mandate is denied.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION ON MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has filed a motion to stay the issuance of our mandate pending disposition of his application for certiorari in the Supreme Court. In his motion the appellant contends that he is entitled to deduct the temporary alimony payments he made pending appeal from the amount of lump sum alimony he was originally ordered to pay the appellee now that the lump sum alimony award has been affirmed. He further asserts that our issuance of mandate will preclude him from receiving meaningful review of that issue in the Supreme Court. Although in this appeal the husband challenged the authority of the trial court to award the temporary alimony, and by our affirmance we have obviously rejected such contention, 405 So.2d 732, we are of the view that the issue as to whether the husband would be entitled to credit has not yet been resolved by an appropriate order of the trial court. The motion for stay of mandate is denied.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

408 So. 2d 1091, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-leonard-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack