McDonald v. McDonald
This text of 413 So. 2d 779 (McDonald v. McDonald) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
413 So. 2d 779, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-mcdonald-fladistctapp-1982.