RALPH W. MICHAELS, APPELLANT,

v.

MARY SOUTHARD AND THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Schreiber v. Schreiber, 217 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1968)
  …ppeal. In the meantime, following Brackin v. Brackin, supra, our decision in this case will apply similarly as contemplated in the indicated rule revision.” See also Lyons v. Lyons, Fla.App.3d 1967, 200 So. 2d 817; Hines v. Hines, Fla.App.1st 1966, 184 So. 2d 510; and Hartley v. Hartley, Fla.App.2d 1961, 134 So. 2d 281. Although the award in Brackin (a token amount of $600.00, payable in installments) was characterized as “go-away” money and did not appear to be alimony in any true sense, see Brackin v. Bra…
• Helene Leslie Lyons v. Lyons, 200 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
  …b, F.A.R., as permitting an appeal from an alimony award when alimony payments had been accepted during the pendency of the appeal. This is the same conclusion reached by the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Hines v. Hines, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 510. Their interpretation of the Brackin decision was that the compliance with the requirements of Rule 3.8 subd. b, F.A.R., is permissive rather than mandatory, and failure to comply with the rule is not a reason for dismissal. In light of the recent…

Authorities Cited

• McMULLEN v. McMULLEN, 145 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
• Osborne v. Shell OIL Co., 104 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)