Sumner v. Sumner

480 So. 2d 706, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 103
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 2, 1986
Docket85-87
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 480 So. 2d 706 (Sumner v. Sumner) 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
Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So. 2d 706, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 103 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

480 So.2d 706 (1986)

David F. SUMNER, Appellant,
v.
Shirley L. SUMNER, Appellee.

No. 85-87.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

January 2, 1986.

*707 Franklin T. Walden of Massey, Alper & Walden, P.A., Altamonte Springs, for appellant.

Mack N. Cleveland, Jr. of Cleveland & Bridges, Sanford, for appellee.

UPCHURCH, Judge.

David Sumner appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which his former wife was awarded lump sum alimony, partial attorney's fees and as rehabilitative alimony the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the wife for medical treatment.

Because rehabilitative alimony is awarded for the purpose of allowing a spouse to attain financial independence during a specified time, it was improper to award rehabilitative alimony without limitation as to time or amount. See Cann v. Cann, 334 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We reverse the rehabilitative alimony award and remand the cause to the trial court to establish a limit of time and amount for the award.

The parties appear to have received an equitable distribution of assets. With these assets added to a recent inheritance, the wife has a greater net worth than the husband. Since the wife had substantially the same ability to pay for legal services as did the husband, the award of attorney's fees to the wife was erroneous and is reversed. See Ariko v. Ariko, 475 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.

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

Related

Gandul v. Gandul
696 So. 2d 466 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Mayo v. Mayo
619 So. 2d 513 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Osborne v. Osborne
595 So. 2d 1121 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
McPeak v. McPeak
582 So. 2d 82 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Landers v. Landers
550 So. 2d 554 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Powers v. Powers
549 So. 2d 791 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Flanders v. Flanders
516 So. 2d 1090 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Marriage of Duggan v. Duggan
512 So. 2d 1145 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Blankenship v. Blankenship
502 So. 2d 1002 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Beaver v. Beaver
500 So. 2d 742 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Kinzler v. Kinzler
497 So. 2d 909 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Sizemore v. Sizemore
487 So. 2d 1080 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
480 So. 2d 706, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sumner-v-sumner-fladistctapp-1986.