Pollock v. Pollock

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pollock v. Pollock

643 So. 2d 1200, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10139, 1994 WL 576131

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2423

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 643 So. 2d 1200 (Pollock v. Pollock) 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

Pollock v. Pollock, 643 So. 2d 1200, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10139, 1994 WL 576131 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals an order which denied her motion to set aside a property settlement agreement. We affirm without prejudice for the wife to file a petition for modification to extend or increase the rehabilitative alimony she is presently receiving, or to convert it to permanent alimony. Wilson v. Wilson, 585 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Saez-Ortiz v. Saez-Ortiz, 560 So.2d 1375, 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Wortzel v. Wortzel, 489 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So.2d 666, 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The trial court has jurisdiction to modify this award, as it reserved jurisdiction in the final judgment, and can revisit this issue at any time. Glover v. Glover, 548 So.2d 863, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Mullins v. Mullins, 409 So.2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

COBB, W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The former wife appeals an order which denied her motion to set aside a property settlement agreement. We affirm without prejudice for the wife to file a petition for modification to extend or increase the rehabilitative alimony she is presently receiving, or to convert it to permanent alimony. Wilson v. Wilson, 585 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Saez-Ortiz v. Saez-Ortiz, 560 So.2d 1375, 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Wortzel v. Wortzel, 489 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Campbell v. Campbell, 432 So.2d 666, 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); O’Neal v. O’Neal, 410 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The trial court has jurisdiction to modify this award, as it reserved jurisdiction in the final judgment, and can revisit this issue at any time. Glover v. Glover, 548 So.2d 863, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Mullins v. Mullins, 409 So.2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

COBB, W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 So. 2d 1200, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10139, 1994 WL 576131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollock-v-pollock-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack