OTTILIA K. NICHOLS, APPELLANT,
v.
BYRON D. NICHOLS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred by not specifically reserving jurisdiction to award permanent alimony in the future.
The trial court awarded rehabilitative alimony of $200 per month for six months in a dissolution of marriage case. The appellant has vision problems.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Chancellor'S Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The only question raised is whether or not the trial court erred in awarding only rehabilitative alimony and only in the amount of $200 per month. The final judgment awarded “rehabilitative alimony in the sum of $200 per month for six (6) months only, beginning on June 1, 1974.” We have read the record and considered the briefs submitted by the parties. In divorce matters, the chancellor has broad discretion and his judgment comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. West v. West, Fla.App. (1st), 260 So. 2d 541.
We agree with the six months’ award of rehabilitative alimony in the sum of $200 per month, but it is our opinion that the final judgment should have specifically reserved jurisdiction to award permanent alimony at a future time if later applied for and properly allowable under § 61.14, Florida Statutes. From the record it appears that appellant has trouble with her vision.
Perhaps the trial court considered that under the aforesaid statute it has continuing jurisdiction to later award permanent alimony and possibly it does. However, this question is not directly before us and has not been briefed by the parties; thus, we do not rule upon it at this time.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions to modify the final judgment to specifically reserve jurisdiction as to subsequent award of permanent alimony if later applied for and properly allowable under Section 61.14, Florida Statutes.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Monserrate B. McNAUGHTON v. McNAUGHTON, 332 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…s and the case law of this state provide the judge with a wide basis for the change in the amount of alimony where there is a change in financial circumstances or where equity so requires. See Fla.Stat. § 61.14; and Nichols v. Nichols, Fla.App.1974, 304 So. 2d 497. The reduction of alimony from $750 to lesser amounts is an abuse of discretion under the facts of this case. We find no basis or reason to disturb the amount of child support allowed. The wife’s point directed to the court’s failure to retain juri…
-
Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…s and the case law of this state provide the judge with a wide basis for the change in the amount of alimony where there is a change in financial circumstances or where equity so requires. See Fla.Stat. § 61.14; and Nichols v. Nichols, Fla.App.1974, 304 So. 2d 497. The reduction of alimony from $750 to lesser amounts is an abuse of discretion under the facts of this case. Similarly, this court noted in McCloskey v. McCloskey, 359 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1979):…
-
Magarowicz v. Magarowicz, 429 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…in jurisdiction expressly for that purpose, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.1980), the trial court here did not abuse its discretion in failing to do so. Cf. Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) and Nichols v. Nichols, 304 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). It was the trial court’s considered opinion, in which we concur, that the award of the marital home and the automobile was equitable under the circumstances. The final judgment is, in all respects, AFFIRMED. BOOTH and NIMMONS…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- West v. West, 260 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)