White v. White

658 So. 2d 681, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8679, 1995 WL 481106
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in White v. White. Read the opinion of the Court — 686 So. 2d 762
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 16, 1995·No. No. 94-2632·Published

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

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

658 So. 2d 681 (White v. White) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.