O. HOKE ROBERTS ET UX., APPELLANTS,

v.

JOHN J. KNOLL ET UX., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Ortiz v. Ortiz, 211 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
  …inal intent, required lump sum alimony to be paid. It is within the discretion of a chancellor to order lump sum alimony [Cocalis v. Cocalis, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 230; Katz v. Katz, Fla.App.1964, 159 So. 2d 241; Sommers v. Sommers, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 496; § 65.08, Fla.Stat.1965, F.S.A.] which may be paid in installments. Schuberth v. Schuberth, Fla.1951, 52 So. 2d 332; Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 671; Katz v. Katz, supra. The appellant does not urge that the amount of lump sum alimony is ex…
• Dash v. Dash, 284 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
  …4% interest in David and Dash and whose salary had initially declined at the same time appellee’s was reduced had regained his original salary level. The factual situation in the instant cause is similar to Sommers v. Sommers, Fla. [*410] App.1964, 169 So. 2d 496. There the parties were married twelve years. The wife was awarded $18,000.00 as lump sum alimony and she maintained this was inadequate. The husband was a successful ladies’ dress manufacturer who, upon selling out his business had over $250,000.00…
• Myron Jay Singer v. Singer, 262 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
  …band’s available income and of his limited capital assets. One challenging an alimony and support money award for excessiveness has the burden of clearly demonstrating an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. See Sommers v. Sommers, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 496; Sommers v. Sommers, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 744; and Levison v. Levison, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 630. While the amount of alimony and support money awarded in this case appears substantial based on the Husband’s present income, there was conflict…