Lewis v. Lewis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lewis v. Lewis

402 So. 2d 1306, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20897

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 18, 1981

DocketNo. 80-1299

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 402 So. 2d 1306 (Lewis v. Lewis) 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

Lewis v. Lewis, 402 So. 2d 1306, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20897 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.

Measured by the criteria enunciated in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), we conclude that the permanent alimony award of $800.00 per month was unreasonable, and reverse and remand for an increase in this amount. Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So.2d 577 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Gerber v. Gerber, 392 So.2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We also find that the court below erred in failing to grant the wife a special equity in the San Francisco and Massachusetts bonds which the court found were purchased, in part, with separate funds of the wife. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); Leonard v. Leonard, 389 So.2d 256 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). Finally, the division of marital property is reversed and remanded for further consideration of the wife’s property rights, which may require an award of lump sum alimony to equitably compensate the wife for her contribution to the marriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra; Colucci v. Colucci, supra. In all other respects the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

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.

Measured by the criteria enunciated in Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), we conclude that the permanent alimony award of $800.00 per month was unreasonable, and reverse and remand for an increase in this amount. Colucci v. Colucci, 392 So.2d 577 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Gerber v. Gerber, 392 So.2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We also find that the court below erred in failing to grant the wife a special equity in the San Francisco and Massachusetts bonds which the court found were purchased, in part, with separate funds of the wife. Duncan v. Duncan, 379 So.2d 949 (Fla.1980); Ball v. Ball, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); Leonard v. Leonard, 389 So.2d 256 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). Finally, the division of marital property is reversed and remanded for further consideration of the wife’s property rights, which may require an award of lump sum alimony to equitably compensate the wife for her contribution to the marriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra; Colucci v. Colucci, supra. In all other respects the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 So. 2d 1306, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-lewis-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack