Soll v. Soll

560 So. 2d 250, 1990 WL 26656
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 13, 1990
Docket89-340
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 560 So. 2d 250 (Soll v. Soll) 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
Soll v. Soll, 560 So. 2d 250, 1990 WL 26656 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

560 So.2d 250 (1990)

Martin A. SOLL, Appellant,
v.
Dayl M. SOLL, Appellee.

No. 89-340.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 13, 1990.
Rehearing Denied May 22, 1990.

*251 Martin A. Soll, in pro. per.

Highsmith, Strauss, Glatzer & Deutsch and Philip Glatzer, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and GERSTEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM

The ex-husband appeals from a final judgment of dissolution insofar as it awarded the wife his interest in the marital home as equitable distribution and lump sum alimony and granted permanent alimony of $500 per month.

Upon consideration of all of the evidence, we find that these awards, taken together, amount to an unjustified "short-changing" of the husband beyond his ability to pay, and thus represent an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Thus, both awards cannot stand. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1204 (Fla. 1980). At oral argument the parties indicated that, were we to reach this conclusion, they both preferred that we rectify the inequity by affirming the disposition of the home and setting the award of alimony aside. We agree that this remedy represents an acceptable appellate resolution of the situation. It is accordingly ordered that the award of alimony is vacated[1] and the remaining portions of the judgment below, including the transfer of the husband's interest in the home, are affirmed.

NOTES

[1] Nothing in this opinion precludes the trial court from retaining jurisdiction to make an award of alimony in the future should a change in circumstances require that result. Greene v. Greene, 256 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 263 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1972).

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

Related

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez
958 So. 2d 436 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Polley v. Polley
588 So. 2d 638 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Simpson v. Simpson
579 So. 2d 374 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. GOLF COURSE TOW. ASSOCIATES
568 So. 2d 501 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
560 So. 2d 250, 1990 WL 26656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soll-v-soll-fladistctapp-1990.