Osborne v. Osborne

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Osborne v. Osborne

680 So. 2d 505, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4058, 1996 WL 191601

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2423

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 680 So. 2d 505 (Osborne v. Osborne) 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

Osborne v. Osborne, 680 So. 2d 505, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4058, 1996 WL 191601 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, appellant complains (1) that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded permanent periodic alimony to appellee; (2) that the values attributed to the principal assets of the parties by the trial court are not supported by competent, substantial evidence; and (3) that the trial court failed to specify which of the parties would [506]*506be custodian of a $4,000.00 “college fund,” which the evidence established was the property of the parties’ children.

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the award of permanent periodic alimony did not constitute a clear abuse of discretion, and that there is competent, substantial evidence supporting the values attributed by the trial court to the principal assets of the parties. Accordingly, we affirm the portions of the final judgment which address those matters.

We conclude, further, that the trial court should have specified which of the parties is to be the custodian of the children’s “college fund,” and the conditions pursuant to which that fund is to be held. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to amend the final judgment by adding a provision specifying which of the parties is to be the custodian of that fund, and the conditions pursuant to which it is to be held. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, appellant complains (1) that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded permanent periodic alimony to appellee; (2) that the values attributed to the principal assets of the parties by the trial court are not supported by competent, substantial evidence; and (3) that the trial court failed to specify which of the parties would [506]*506be custodian of a $4,000.00 “college fund,” which the evidence established was the property of the parties’ children.

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the award of permanent periodic alimony did not constitute a clear abuse of discretion, and that there is competent, substantial evidence supporting the values attributed by the trial court to the principal assets of the parties. Accordingly, we affirm the portions of the final judgment which address those matters.

We conclude, further, that the trial court should have specified which of the parties is to be the custodian of the children’s “college fund,” and the conditions pursuant to which that fund is to be held. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to amend the final judgment by adding a provision specifying which of the parties is to be the custodian of that fund, and the conditions pursuant to which it is to be held. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

680 So. 2d 505, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4058, 1996 WL 191601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-osborne-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack