Mayo v. Mayo

619 So. 2d 513, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6486, 1993 WL 208060
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 16, 1993·No. No. 92-1707·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises three points, all of which have merit. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction to proceed in accordance herewith.

The trial court abused its discretion in the total award of alimony and child support. See Todesco v. Todesco, 583 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Further, it erred in failing to set a date for termination of rehabilitative alimony. See Roth v. Roth, 615 So.2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So.2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Zilbert v. Zilbert, 287 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Finally, the-trial court erred in awarding an attorney’s fee without any evidence in support thereof. See Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

Mayo v. Mayo, 619 So. 2d 513, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6486, 1993 WL 208060 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

619 So. 2d 513 (Mayo v. Mayo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Draulans v. Draulans
69 So. 3d 401 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Pitts v. Pitts
626 So. 2d 278 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)