Torrealday v. Torrealday

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Torrealday v. Torrealday

761 So. 2d 1246, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8740, 2000 WL 973734

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-2111

StatusPublished

This text of 761 So. 2d 1246 (Torrealday v. Torrealday) 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

Torrealday v. Torrealday, 761 So. 2d 1246, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8740, 2000 WL 973734 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

The husband challenges the final order of dissolution of marriage contending that the trial court erred in awarding permanent alimony and in distributing assets to the wife. We disagree and affirm the final order without discussion. We do, howev[1247]*1247er, agree, as does the wife, with the husband’s contention that the trial court failed to provide language in the final order that alimony would terminate upon the death of either party or remarriage of the wife. We therefore remand for modification of the final order to reflect such language. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Hunt v. Hunt, 481 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

The husband challenges the final order of dissolution of marriage contending that the trial court erred in awarding permanent alimony and in distributing assets to the wife. We disagree and affirm the final order without discussion. We do, howev[1247]*1247er, agree, as does the wife, with the husband’s contention that the trial court failed to provide language in the final order that alimony would terminate upon the death of either party or remarriage of the wife. We therefore remand for modification of the final order to reflect such language. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Hunt v. Hunt, 481 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Affirmed; remanded with directions.

GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 So. 2d 1246, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8740, 2000 WL 973734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torrealday-v-torrealday-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack