O'Brien v. O'Brien

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O'Brien v. O'Brien

423 So. 2d 1013, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22201

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 1982

DocketNo. 81-2285

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 423 So. 2d 1013 (O'Brien v. O'Brien) 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

O'Brien v. O'Brien, 423 So. 2d 1013, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22201 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWNEY, Judge.

The final judgment of dissolution under review in this appeal awarded the wife custody, child support, lump sum rehabilitative alimony, certain personal property which had been jointly held, and attorneys fees. The wife and husband were decreed to be tenants in common in certain jointly owned realty and, in addition, the husband was awarded a waterfront lot and certain personal property.

The wife contends that the award of rehabilitative alimony was improper and inadequate, that the child support awarded was inadequate, and that allowing some of the personal property to remain jointly owned constituted error. The husband, by way of cross-appeal, suggests that error was committed in awarding rehabilitative alimony [1014]*1014“irrespective of remarriage or death of either party” and in awarding the wife attorneys fees.

After considering each point raised by the parties, we find no reversible error except the amount awarded, the wife as lump sum rehabilitative alimony. The sum of $100 per week is inadequate to meet her needs during the rehabilitative period. Upon consideration of the record, the amount of lump sum rehabilitative alimony should be increased to $32,500 payable at the rate of $200 per week. The husband contends that the provision awarding rehabilitative alimony in lump sum payable in installments to “continue irrespective of the death or remarriage of either of the parties” constitutes error. We disagree. Rehabilitative alimony may be awarded in lump sum payable over a period of time and lump sum alimony survives the death or remarriage of the parties. Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We would distinguish the case of Richter v. Richter, 344 So.2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), as it did not involve an award of rehabilitative alimony in lump sum. Therefore, the award was modifiable and terminable upon death or remarriage.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects except as modified above.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.

LETTS, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.

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

DOWNEY, Judge.

The final judgment of dissolution under review in this appeal awarded the wife custody, child support, lump sum rehabilitative alimony, certain personal property which had been jointly held, and attorneys fees. The wife and husband were decreed to be tenants in common in certain jointly owned realty and, in addition, the husband was awarded a waterfront lot and certain personal property.

The wife contends that the award of rehabilitative alimony was improper and inadequate, that the child support awarded was inadequate, and that allowing some of the personal property to remain jointly owned constituted error. The husband, by way of cross-appeal, suggests that error was committed in awarding rehabilitative alimony [1014]*1014“irrespective of remarriage or death of either party” and in awarding the wife attorneys fees.

After considering each point raised by the parties, we find no reversible error except the amount awarded, the wife as lump sum rehabilitative alimony. The sum of $100 per week is inadequate to meet her needs during the rehabilitative period. Upon consideration of the record, the amount of lump sum rehabilitative alimony should be increased to $32,500 payable at the rate of $200 per week. The husband contends that the provision awarding rehabilitative alimony in lump sum payable in installments to “continue irrespective of the death or remarriage of either of the parties” constitutes error. We disagree. Rehabilitative alimony may be awarded in lump sum payable over a period of time and lump sum alimony survives the death or remarriage of the parties. Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We would distinguish the case of Richter v. Richter, 344 So.2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), as it did not involve an award of rehabilitative alimony in lump sum. Therefore, the award was modifiable and terminable upon death or remarriage.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects except as modified above.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.

LETTS, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 So. 2d 1013, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-obrien-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack