Steffen v. Steffen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Steffen v. Steffen

527 So. 2d 967, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1580, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2922, 1988 WL 70574

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1096

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 527 So. 2d 967 (Steffen v. Steffen) 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

Steffen v. Steffen, 527 So. 2d 967, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1580, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2922, 1988 WL 70574 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the former husband raises two issues: (1) The trial court erred in awarding the wife permanent alimony in that the award exceeded the husband’s ability to pay and the wife did not testify as to her need for alimony. (2) The trial court erred in awarding the wife a sum equal to 40 percent of the husband’s gross military retirement pay. We conclude the first issue is without merit and affirm. As to the second issue raised, the wife concedes error, replying that the Uniform Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (10 U.S.C. § 1408) permits the states to make an equitable distribution of the “disposable retirement pay” of the member as defined in the Act. (e.s.)

Accordingly, on remand the trial court is directed to limit the award of retirement pay to a portion of the appellant’s disposable retirement pay as provided in 10 U.S.C. § 1408.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the former husband raises two issues: (1) The trial court erred in awarding the wife permanent alimony in that the award exceeded the husband’s ability to pay and the wife did not testify as to her need for alimony. (2) The trial court erred in awarding the wife a sum equal to 40 percent of the husband’s gross military retirement pay. We conclude the first issue is without merit and affirm. As to the second issue raised, the wife concedes error, replying that the Uniform Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (10 U.S.C. § 1408) permits the states to make an equitable distribution of the “disposable retirement pay” of the member as defined in the Act. (e.s.)

Accordingly, on remand the trial court is directed to limit the award of retirement pay to a portion of the appellant’s disposable retirement pay as provided in 10 U.S.C. § 1408.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

BOOTH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 So. 2d 967, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1580, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2922, 1988 WL 70574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steffen-v-steffen-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack