McDonald v. McDonald

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McDonald v. McDonald

413 So. 2d 779, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19670

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 30, 1982·No. No. 81-1215·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error or abuse of discretion has been demonstrated with respect to the trial judge’s rulings which (a) awarded the wife a one-half interest in real property in Kentucky as lump sum alimony and provided for appointment of a commissioner to convey the property; and (b) awarded the wife periodic alimony. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1979); Schwartz v. Schwartz, 396 So.2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sec. 61.08, Fla.Stat.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error or abuse of discretion has been demonstrated with respect to the trial judge’s rulings which (a) awarded the wife a one-half interest in real property in Kentucky as lump sum alimony and provided for appointment of a commissioner to convey the property; and (b) awarded the wife periodic alimony. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1979); Schwartz v. Schwartz, 396 So.2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Rosen v. Rosen, 386 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sec. 61.08, Fla.Stat.

Affirmed.

McDonald v. McDonald, 413 So. 2d 779, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19670 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

413 So. 2d 779 (McDonald v. McDonald) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related