Sanford v. Sanford

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sanford v. Sanford

440 So. 2d 1319, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23454

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 1983

DocketNo. 83-405

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 440 So. 2d 1319 (Sanford v. Sanford) 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

Sanford v. Sanford, 440 So. 2d 1319, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23454 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a dissolution of marriage judgment. We affirm except as to the following matter. The trial court awarded permanent periodic alimony to the Wife in the sum of “80.00 per week or 20% of the Husband’s gross income; whichever is greater”. The Husband appeals. We reverse and remand with instructions to delete the words and figures “20% of the Husband’s gross income; whichever is greater” thereby leaving the award to the Wife simply $80.00 per week. Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). We do not think the award here operated or was designed to maintain the status quo as was the case in Mills v. Mills, 417 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), in that the automatic percentage figure does not take into account factors such as the Wife’s needs and other aspects of the Husband’s financial condition.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a dissolution of marriage judgment. We affirm except as to the following matter. The trial court awarded permanent periodic alimony to the Wife in the sum of “80.00 per week or 20% of the Husband’s gross income; whichever is greater”. The Husband appeals. We reverse and remand with instructions to delete the words and figures “20% of the Husband’s gross income; whichever is greater” thereby leaving the award to the Wife simply $80.00 per week. Kangas v. Kangas, 420 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). We do not think the award here operated or was designed to maintain the status quo as was the case in Mills v. Mills, 417 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), in that the automatic percentage figure does not take into account factors such as the Wife’s needs and other aspects of the Husband’s financial condition.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions.

GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 So. 2d 1319, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanford-v-sanford-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack