Langston v. Langston, s. 71--637
| Decision Date | 08 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | 71--800,Nos. 71--637,s. 71--637 |
| Citation | 257 So.2d 625 |
| Parties | Shelby Preston LANGSTON, Appellant, v. Martha Henderson LANGSTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Miami, Milton E. Grusmark, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Carr & Warren, Miami, for appellee.
Before SWANN, C.J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
Appeal by the husband from certain provisions in a final decree of divorce for the wife.
The wife was awarded lump sum alimony of $183,750, payable over a period of nine years and eleven months. On appeal the husband argues error was made in the determination of his total assets resulting in an excessive award of lump sum alimony to the wife. The wife argues the husband failed to provide this court with all the evidence relating to the husband's assets which were before the trial judge.
In order to disturb an allowance of lump sum alimony, the appellant is required, on appeal, to clearly show the trial court abused its discretion in the amount of the award. No abuse of such discretion has been clearly shown in this appeal. Ortiz Ortiz, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 243; and Pollak v. Pollak, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 771.
The husband argues next that the trial court had 'no power to regain jurisdiction after nine years and eleven months have passed.' This is an improper statement as the final decree Reserved jurisdiction for several purposes and there is no valid point concerning the trial court regaining jurisdiction. We note that counsel who prepared this point was not counsel who argued the case on appeal. The husband challenges only the reservation of jurisdiction by the trial court for the purpose of:
'Considering after the expiration of nine years and eleven months from June 1, 1971, the need of the Plaintiff, MARTHA HENDERSON LANGSTON, if any, and of the Defendant's SHELBY PRESTON LANGSTON'S ability to pay alimony to the plaintiff, in periodic installments.'
The husband concedes the trial judge has legal authority to grant both lump sum and periodic alimony to a wife. See Fla. Stat. § 61.08, F.S.A., Barfield v. Barfield, Fla.App.1966, 226 So.2d 132; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 734. His position is the trial judge abused his discretion in awarding lump sum alimony and in reserving jurisdiction to possibly award periodic alimony at a future date.
We considered a fact situation somewhat similar in Zohlman v. Zohlman, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 532. There, we found no abuse of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sisson v. Sisson
...223 (Fla.1972); Baker v. Baker, 299 So.2d 138 (Fla.App.3d 1974); Schultz v. Schultz, 290 So.2d 146 (Fla.App.2d 1974); Langston v. Langston, 257 So.2d 625 (Fla.App.3d 1972); Zohlman v. Zohlman, 235 So.2d 532 (Fla.App.3d 1970) and Sommers v. Sommers, 183 So.2d 744 (Fla.App.3d 1966). We grant ......
-
Storer v. Storer, 74-1392
...supra; Zohlman v. Zohlman, 235 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Fishman v. Fishman, 245 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Langston v. Langston, 257 So.2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). By definition, an award of lump sum alimony vests in the recipient at the time of the final decree, and is not subject t......
-
Price v. Price, s. 79-1158
...of jurisdiction is permitted, Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra ; Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Langston v. Langston, 257 So.2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), it is not required. Elkins v. Elkins, 287 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Poe v. Poe, 263 So.2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Cf. Gr......
-
Canakaris v. Canakaris
...alimony if found necessary after such termination of lump sum alimony installment payments. See Hyatt v. Hyatt; Langston v. Langston, 257 So.2d 625 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). Permanent Periodic Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and the necessities of life to a former spouse as......