Leopard v. Leopard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Leopard v. Leopard

464 So. 2d 632, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 510, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12724

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 28, 1985·No. No. 84-165·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to award her a greater amount of permanent alimony.

This was a thirty-three year marriage. The husband, age fifty-four, is retired from the military and not otherwise employed. He has a weekly income of $436.00 in military and social security benefits. The wife, age fifty-two, is employed as a telephone operator earning $137.00 per week. Because of her physical condition and a lack of other skills, the wife’s present occupation is the limit of her expectations.

The court awarded the wife $75.00 per week in permanent alimony, leaving the husband with $361.00 per week and the wife with $212.00 per week including her wages. We find this award, which results in a disparity of approximately $600.00 per month in the parties’ income, to be facially insufficient and reverse. See Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984); Cowan v. Cowan, 389 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So.2d 777 (Fla.1981). Upon remand the court should award at least $50.00 more per week.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ„ concur.

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

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to award her a greater amount of permanent alimony.

This was a thirty-three year marriage. The husband, age fifty-four, is retired from the military and not otherwise employed. He has a weekly income of $436.00 in military and social security benefits. The wife, age fifty-two, is employed as a telephone operator earning $137.00 per week. Because of her physical condition and a lack of other skills, the wife’s present occupation is the limit of her expectations.

The court awarded the wife $75.00 per week in permanent alimony, leaving the husband with $361.00 per week and the wife with $212.00 per week including her wages. We find this award, which results in a disparity of approximately $600.00 per month in the parties’ income, to be facially insufficient and reverse. See Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984); Cowan v. Cowan, 389 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So.2d 777 (Fla.1981). Upon remand the court should award at least $50.00 more per week.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ„ concur.

Leopard v. Leopard, 464 So. 2d 632, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 510, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12724 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

464 So. 2d 632 (Leopard v. Leopard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related