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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 1985

DocketNo. 84-165

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 464 So. 2d 632 (Leopard v. Leopard) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 So. 2d 632, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 510, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leopard-v-leopard-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack