Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

619 So. 2d 513

Mayo v. Mayo

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1993-06-16

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 2011

2 state decisions

Relies on 472 So. 2d 1145 - Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe · 565 So. 2d 820 - Gentile v. Gentile · 589 So. 2d 1363 - Prom v. Prom

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-06-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellant raises three points, all of which have merit. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction to proceed in accordance herewith.

¶2The trial court abused its discretion in the total award of alimony and child support. See Todesco v. Todesco, 583 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Gentile v. Gentile, 565 So.2d 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Further, it erred in failing to set a date for termination of rehabilitative alimony. See Roth v. Roth, 615 So.2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Sumner v. Sumner, 480 So.2d 706 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Zilbert v. Zilbert, 287 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Finally, the-trial court erred in awarding an attorney’s fee without any evidence in support thereof. See Prom v. Prom, 589 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
/619/so2d/513 · .json · Public domain