Zeide v. Zeide

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zeide v. Zeide

719 So. 2d 919, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9759, 1998 WL 438805

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1998

DocketNos. 96-2139, 97-0011

StatusPublished

This text of 719 So. 2d 919 (Zeide v. Zeide) 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

Zeide v. Zeide, 719 So. 2d 919, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9759, 1998 WL 438805 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects except we reverse the amount of the alimony award. The trial court did not err in determining that the former wife’s monthly needs were $8,500, although this figure is well below what the former wife requested. However, by failing to take into account the tax implications of [920]*920the sourcing of much of the income which the court anticipated appellant would receive, the trial court substantially overestimated the spendable income appellant would have. As a result, the former wife’s spendable income is not nearly the amount the court determined she needs. We accordingly reverse and remand for correction of the alimony awards.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, POLEN, JJ., and WEINSTEIN, PETER M., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects except we reverse the amount of the alimony award. The trial court did not err in determining that the former wife’s monthly needs were $8,500, although this figure is well below what the former wife requested. However, by failing to take into account the tax implications of [920]*920the sourcing of much of the income which the court anticipated appellant would receive, the trial court substantially overestimated the spendable income appellant would have. As a result, the former wife’s spendable income is not nearly the amount the court determined she needs. We accordingly reverse and remand for correction of the alimony awards.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, POLEN, JJ., and WEINSTEIN, PETER M., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

719 So. 2d 919, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9759, 1998 WL 438805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeide-v-zeide-fladistctapp-1998.