Whelpley v. Whelpley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Whelpley v. Whelpley

98 So. 3d 780, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18088, 2012 WL 4897656

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 17, 2012

DocketNo. 4D11-3155

StatusPublished

This text of 98 So. 3d 780 (Whelpley v. Whelpley) 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

Whelpley v. Whelpley, 98 So. 3d 780, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18088, 2012 WL 4897656 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution. Because appellant has failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings, he attacks the final judgment as erroneous on its face. We find no error or insufficiency with the findings of the trial court, except as to the award of bridge-the-gap alimony for a period of three years. Under section 61.08(5), Florida Statutes, an award of bridge-the-gap alimony may not exceed two years in length. Nevertheless, the findings in the final judgment show that the court was actually awarding rehabilitative alimony, as the former wife presented a plan for her re-education, upon which the trial court made the three-year award.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution. Because appellant has failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings, he attacks the final judgment as erroneous on its face. We find no error or insufficiency with the findings of the trial court, except as to the award of bridge-the-gap alimony for a period of three years. Under section 61.08(5), Florida Statutes, an award of bridge-the-gap alimony may not exceed two years in length. Nevertheless, the findings in the final judgment show that the court was actually awarding rehabilitative alimony, as the former wife presented a plan for her re-education, upon which the trial court made the three-year award.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 So. 3d 780, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18088, 2012 WL 4897656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whelpley-v-whelpley-fladistctapp-2012.