CALVIN J. BAILEY, APPELLANT,
v.
MOLLY J. BAILEY, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney'S Fees On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
The appellant husband seeks review of a final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties and awarding the appellee wife lump sum alimony, permanent periodic alimony and attorney’s fees.
Our study of the briefs and record convinces us that the award of the marital domicile as lump sum alimony was not justified under the facts of this case.
Accordingly, we reverse that provision of the final judgment which awards the marital domicile to the appellee as lump sum alimony and affirm the judgment in all other respects.
The cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to further consider the matter and grant appellee the exclusive possession of the marital domicile for a reasonable period of time as may be required by the circumstances of the parties and the facts of the case.
Appellee’s petition for the allowance of attorney’s fee on appeal is granted and, upon remand, the trial court shall determine a reasonable attorney’s fee for appel-lee’s counsel for these proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, with directions.
SMITH, ROBERT P., Jr., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferriss v. Ferriss, 356 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…la. 3rd DCA 1974); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 303 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1974); Venzer v. Venzer, 308 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Cannon v. Cannon, 323 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Gesford v. Gesford, 337 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) and Bailey v. Bailey, 340 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). See also Canakaris v. Canakaris, 356 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) Case no. FF-265, Opinion filed March 17, 1978. I would reverse.…
-
Gordon v. Isabella Pinoargotty, 403 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
-
Raines v. Palm Beach Leisurville Cmty. Ass'n, Inc., 48 Fla. Supp. 94 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. 1978)…ants’ motion, and after consideration of argument by counsel, the court has concluded that the reservation of jurisdiction clause in the July 6th final judgment does not detract from the finality of that order. Southeastern Fid. Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 340 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Furthermore, defendants’ motion for clarification is the equivalent of a motion for rehearing which under Rule 1.530(b), Fla.R.Civ.P., had to be served within ten days of the entry of the judgment. Since the motion was not timel…