Moler v. Moler

508 So. 2d 520, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1436
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 10, 1987
Docket4-86-0614
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 508 So. 2d 520 (Moler v. Moler) 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
Moler v. Moler, 508 So. 2d 520, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1436 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

508 So.2d 520 (1987)

Sherilan Rae MOLER, Appellant/Cross Appellee,
v.
George Preston MOLER, Appellee/Cross Appellant.

No. 4-86-0614.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1987.
Rehearing Denied July 10, 1987.

David F. Holmes, Slocomb, Ala., for appellant/cross appellee.

Joel L. Kirschbaum of Esler & Kirschbaum, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee/cross appellant.

LETTS, Judge.

After the entry of a final order of dissolution, the husband successfully argued on rehearing that permanent periodic alimony, in the sum of $1,500 per month, should not *521 have been awarded. As a consequence, the permanent award was set aside and in place thereof rehabilitative alimony for four years, in the same amount, was substituted. The wife now appeals that exchange and we reverse.

This was a long term marriage which produced one child and during which the wife, age 52, did not work. She does not have a college degree, her typing skills are minimal, she has failed the examination to become a real estate salesperson and she suffers from high blood pressure and arthritis. The husband is a college graduate, considerably younger, healthy, and successful, earning $83,000 per year.

This is a classic case in which to award permanent periodic alimony. See Hirst v. Hirst, 452 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Linn v. Linn, 464 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Accordingly, and without further discussion, we reverse the first amended final judgment with directions to reinstate the original one which granted permanent periodic alimony.

In all other respects, the cause is affirmed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WALDEN, J., concurs.

STONE, J., dissents without opinion.

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

Related

Weimer v. Weimer
677 So. 2d 86 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Thelk v. Thelk
535 So. 2d 609 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Sauer v. Sauer
527 So. 2d 957 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Allman v. Allman
510 So. 2d 1251 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
508 So. 2d 520, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moler-v-moler-fladistctapp-1987.