Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

464 So. 2d 632

464 So.2d 632

10 Fla.L.Weekly 510

Leopard v. Leopard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 28, 1985

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-02-28

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1990

2 state decisions

Relies on 397 So. 2d 775 - Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Ed Soules Const. Co. · Vandergriff v. Vandergriff · 389 So. 2d 1187 - Cowan v. Cowan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-02-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

¶1The wife appeals from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to award her a greater amount of permanent alimony.

¶2This was a thirty-three year marriage. The husband, age fifty-four, is retired from the military and not otherwise employed. He has a weekly income of $436.00 in military and social security benefits. The wife, age fifty-two, is employed as a telephone operator earning $137.00 per week. Because of her physical condition and a lack of other skills, the wife’s present occupation is the limit of her expectations.

¶3The court awarded the wife $75.00 per week in permanent alimony, leaving the husband with $361.00 per week and the wife with $212.00 per week including her wages. We find this award, which results in a disparity of approximately $600.00 per month in the parties’ income, to be facially insufficient and reverse. See Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 456 So.2d 464 (Fla.1984); Cowan v. Cowan, 389 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So.2d 777 (Fla.1981). Upon remand the court should award at least $50.00 more per week.

¶4REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ„ concur.
/464/so2d/632 · .json · Public domain