LEVIE CODIE, APPELLANT,
v.
HAZEL LEE CODIE, 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 in setting an unrealistic payment deadline for the lump sum alimony award, but affirmed the award itself.
The trial court awarded a lump sum alimony of $10,300, payable within 35 days. The record indicated the appellant lacked the present ability to comply…
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 Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from an alimony award, we find no reversible error in the granting of a lump sum in the amount of $10,300. The court ordered such sums payable within thirty-five (35) days, however, and the record affirmatively demonstrates no present ability on the part of appellant to comply therewith.
The record does demonstrate, on the other hand, wherewithal to comply with the alimony award well within two (2) years from the taking of testimony. So, this appeal having taken some eight months during which the time for compliance with the judgment has been stayed, we think that in the absence of a material change in circumstances in the meantime appellant ought be in a position to comply with the judgment within approximately the next ensuing year. In view whereof the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed insofar as it requires appellant to comply therewith within thirty-five (35) days; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings and the entry of an appropriate judgment not inconsistent herewith. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 401 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…assets. 27B C.J.S. Divorce § 250 (1959); See Kirchman v. Kirchman, 389 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). [*1375] We therefore remand this proceeding to the trial court to set a definite payment schedule for the lump sum alimony award. Codie v. Codie, 328 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . The judgment provides: 6. The Husband shall pay to the Wife lump sum alimony of $200…