Rickling v. Rickling

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rickling v. Rickling

364 So. 2d 516, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16683

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 1978

DocketNo. 77-1532

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 364 So. 2d 516 (Rickling v. Rickling) 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

Rickling v. Rickling, 364 So. 2d 516, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16683 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the husband from an award of rehabilitative alimony. We agree with appellant that there is no basis in the evidence for a rehabilitative award. There is no evidence that Mrs. Rickling’s ability to support herself will be different in five years, the period of time rehabilitative alimony was ordered or that she requires rehabilitation at all. However, it is not entirely clear what purpose the trial court had in mind in making the award, and some additional award to the wife and minor child may be justified, omitting rehabilitative alimony.

Accordingly, the award of rehabilitative alimony is hereby reversed and this cause is remanded for reconsideration by the trial court in accordance with this opinion.

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the husband from an award of rehabilitative alimony. We agree with appellant that there is no basis in the evidence for a rehabilitative award. There is no evidence that Mrs. Rickling’s ability to support herself will be different in five years, the period of time rehabilitative alimony was ordered or that she requires rehabilitation at all. However, it is not entirely clear what purpose the trial court had in mind in making the award, and some additional award to the wife and minor child may be justified, omitting rehabilitative alimony.

Accordingly, the award of rehabilitative alimony is hereby reversed and this cause is remanded for reconsideration by the trial court in accordance with this opinion.

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 So. 2d 516, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rickling-v-rickling-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack