White v. White

District Court of Appeal of Florida

White v. White

658 So. 2d 681, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8679, 1995 WL 481106

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2632

StatusPublished

This text of 658 So. 2d 681 (White v. White) 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

White v. White, 658 So. 2d 681, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8679, 1995 WL 481106 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, JAMES R., Associate Judge.

Appellant, former wife, challenges an order entered upon both parties’ requests for modification of alimony and child support. Appellant alleges that the trial court erred when it found her alimony would be “treated as rehabilitative in nature.” We find the trial court did in fact err since there was no request in the pleadings to convert the alimony from permanent to rehabilitative, the issue was not tried, and there was no evidence to support such a change.

Appellee, former husband, raises a number of issues on cross appeal, none of which demonstrates error requiring reversal. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions that the alimony award to the former wife be treated as permanent in nature. In all other respects, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

FARMER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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

WOLF, JAMES R., Associate Judge.

Appellant, former wife, challenges an order entered upon both parties’ requests for modification of alimony and child support. Appellant alleges that the trial court erred when it found her alimony would be “treated as rehabilitative in nature.” We find the trial court did in fact err since there was no request in the pleadings to convert the alimony from permanent to rehabilitative, the issue was not tried, and there was no evidence to support such a change.

Appellee, former husband, raises a number of issues on cross appeal, none of which demonstrates error requiring reversal. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions that the alimony award to the former wife be treated as permanent in nature. In all other respects, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

FARMER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 So. 2d 681, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8679, 1995 WL 481106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-white-fladistctapp-1995.