Sullivan v. Sullivan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sullivan v. Sullivan

556 So. 2d 1153, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 453, 1990 WL 5249

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1990

DocketNo. 89-00545

StatusPublished

This text of 556 So. 2d 1153 (Sullivan v. Sullivan) 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

Sullivan v. Sullivan, 556 So. 2d 1153, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 453, 1990 WL 5249 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The husband, William E. Sullivan, appeals from a final judgment of dissolution rendered September 16, 1989.

We vacate paragraph 19 of the judgment, which awards the wife half interest in various real properties as lump sum alimony. We further vacate section B of the adjudicatory section of the judgment, ordering the husband to convey all his interest in the listed properties to the wife.

We remand with directions that the trial judge shall enter an amended final judgment dividing the real properties as described in section B of the judgment in approximately equal shares. The trial court, in its discretion, may receive additional evidence of value of such properties. Otherwise, we affirm.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The husband, William E. Sullivan, appeals from a final judgment of dissolution rendered September 16, 1989.

We vacate paragraph 19 of the judgment, which awards the wife half interest in various real properties as lump sum alimony. We further vacate section B of the adjudicatory section of the judgment, ordering the husband to convey all his interest in the listed properties to the wife.

We remand with directions that the trial judge shall enter an amended final judgment dividing the real properties as described in section B of the judgment in approximately equal shares. The trial court, in its discretion, may receive additional evidence of value of such properties. Otherwise, we affirm.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 So. 2d 1153, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 453, 1990 WL 5249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-sullivan-fladistctapp-1990.