Twomey v. Twomey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Twomey v. Twomey

566 So. 2d 362, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6748, 1990 WL 129101

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 5, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1780

StatusPublished

This text of 566 So. 2d 362 (Twomey v. Twomey) 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

Twomey v. Twomey, 566 So. 2d 362, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6748, 1990 WL 129101 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify rehabilitative alimony because appellee failed to file her motion within the five year rehabilitative period, we are compelled to vacate the trial court order and remand for dismissal. See section 61.14, Fla.Stat.; Wright v. Wright, 559 So.2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Glover v. Glover, 548 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Paulk v. Paulk, 504 So.2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Griffin v. Griffin, 502 So.2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Pratt v. Pratt, 502 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Veach v. Veach, 407 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Myrick v. Myrick, 402 So.2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Lee v. Lee, 309 So.2d 26 (Fla.2d 1975); Gedney v. Gedney, 117 Fla. 686, 158 So. 288 (1934).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ZEHMER, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify rehabilitative alimony because appellee failed to file her motion within the five year rehabilitative period, we are compelled to vacate the trial court order and remand for dismissal. See section 61.14, Fla.Stat.; Wright v. Wright, 559 So.2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Glover v. Glover, 548 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Paulk v. Paulk, 504 So.2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Griffin v. Griffin, 502 So.2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Pratt v. Pratt, 502 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Veach v. Veach, 407 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Myrick v. Myrick, 402 So.2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Lee v. Lee, 309 So.2d 26 (Fla.2d 1975); Gedney v. Gedney, 117 Fla. 686, 158 So. 288 (1934).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ZEHMER, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 So. 2d 362, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6748, 1990 WL 129101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twomey-v-twomey-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack